Facebook

Courtney Hicks I would love to continue this discussion, but I decided last night that I'm leaving Facebook, because it is bad for the world as a platform, and so I don't want to support it with my participation. I like social media, and I'm not sure where I will end up. but I can't support a platform that tries to portray Breitbart as an authoritative source of truth about the world, and that allows rampant political falsehoods to be broadcast across it. So, for now, I guess we could chat on Twitter (which I hate, actually, but I don't know of any other platform with reach). I'm @davehirsch2 there.

It's not the people that are the problem, it's the platform. Facebook as an organization is bad for the world, on balance. If this is an organization, a place, where Breitbart is considered truthful, then this is not a place I want to support. And Zuckerberg's recent testimony does not give me hope for improvement.

And make no mistake, just by reading Facebook, you provide revenue to the business as you scroll by all those ads.

I'm leaning towards Vero (https://vero.co/) as a possible alternative. Of course, the network effects make it useless unless others come along. We'll see.

I think those of us that value a good society should just leave this place to the right-wing trolls. Anybody have a suggestion for a better online society place?

Maybe I'll see what's going on with Snapchat or even [shudder] Twitter.

It's going to take me some time to download all my data, and I may leave a zombie profile here, but I'm going to delete the app from my gadgets and such, and stop dropping by to get my likes.

This pushed me over the edge: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/25/facebook-breitbart-news-tab-alt-right

Courtney Hicks I don't recall saying that, but if so, then I am able to be convinced with less than 100%. There are certainly things that I believe to be true on the basis of evidence and reasoning, such as: "the sun exists when I can't see it", or "the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old". Knock yourself out, man: show me the proof!

Well, I suppose they would also have to prove that he wants our worship.

Courtney Hicks if someone could prove to me that God exists then I would worship him.

NCSA Mosaic 4 EVAH!

Love you Suzanne, but this is a chain BS thing and it is incorrect.

Copying and pasting doesn't bypass any kind of blocking system. The only benefit you might get is that by having people comment on one of your posts, like I am doing now, FB will tie you closer together and bump them up in your algorithm so you are more likely to see the posts from me and the other commenters here.

But there's nothing magical about the chain post you pasted. You could post a political message or a cute dog photo, and any commenters would get a similar boost in your algorithm and you might be more likely to see their posts.

This will significantly decrease my quality of life. Will you be on some other system? Twitter?

Joel O'Connor wins for the most on-point XKCD!

"ass friends"

I agree that this was a better choice than Thunberg.

I GET KNOCKED DOWN

David Nicholson so do you still claim then that “the left [has] abandoned policy discussions”?

David Nicholson since when? Warren, the front- runner, is essentially 100% policy! She’s more policy than any candidate at this point in the race for the last few decades, maybe ever!
If you’re thinking about loudmouths online, that’s an unfair way to characterize the party as a whole. You wouldn’t want to be characterized by the most strident members of your group, would you?

Who cares about Zuckerberg? The voters are liking Warren. I notice that your criticisms are not addressing any policy points; is there a reason for that?

So sorry to hear this.

3) Vodka Martini, Shaken, not stirred - Bond

I think it looks good this way.

Russ Granger I agree that it’s interesting! Thanks for posting it.

Not sure what you mean about warming, and a excursion is not "almost" a pole reversal. By "reversal", you presumably either mean the poles flipped at all, which they did for a few hundred years in this event, or you mean there was a "real" reversal (meaning both the inner and outer core flipped polarity), which did not happen in this event.
Here's the temperature data for the period covered, with the dot identifying the data point for 42000 years ago. Where is the warming you speak of, that you imply is connected with this few-hundred year magnetic event? It looks to me like an uninterrupted warming trend from 45300 to 41500 years ago, with no deviations from that trend that might be related to a few-hundred-year excursion.

Joanne Mizutani-Neuffer I don’t think I have it though.

Shannon Scott or lazy. Don’t forget Lazy!

Thanks for this perspective, Pati.

Robin Greenberg could be May. I was riffing.

What’s your point here Russ? Vague insinuations don’t help us collectively get to the truth.

It begins!

SO glad to hear it!

Many people would say that it's fully justified, science-based, and realistic "fear-mongering".

Adams sound reasonable but he neglects the very real feedback loops in the climate system that could push us from the relatively stable climate we have now to a relatively stable climate which is much hotter. When he says "Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away, we have a 100% success rate in solving it," this sound comforting but is actually cherry-picking and misleading.

Cherry picking because he limits his consideration to "modern history" - why? Maybe because there are records of cultures that died out because they couldn't stop their practices that contributed to ecological damage?

Misleading because it is debatable whether we have seen the problem of climate change coming from far enough away. Also misleading because he gives no examples of the kind of species-wide problems that we saw coming during modern history from far away and solved. I'm not sure there are any. So perhaps rather than 100%, it should be 0%?

Finally, he has nice stories about how we'll all get some great CO2 capture systems going fast once we collectively decide that the problem is real. This relies on unproven assumptions about the ability for us as a species to spend a great deal of money and other resources to solve this diffuse problem at a time when the leaders of our country don't even admit there is a problem. So, he's rolling the dice that we will go against our recent history of behavior and if he's wrong then our descendants will, at least, live in much worse conditions than they do now.

Maybe the reason he pitches this towards kids is because it's a fairy tale.

Another good point: Our failure to impeach him so far is actually causing his current and future bad actions! https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/impeachment-donald-trump-house-of-representatives-consequences.html

Polls show that Democratic voters are supporting her, not that the DNC is pushing her. By all means, be outraged that Democratic voters don't share your preferences in a candidate, but I don't think you can justify your allegation that the DNC is pushing her (by which I mean giving her an artificial boost).

Roger Good I get the sense that the DNC, having been burned last time, is very sensitive to allegations of favoritism or picking winners in advance of the vote. Do you have evidence that they are pushing Warren in the sense of giving her a boost in some way? I'm not seeing that. I think that the Democratic primary voters are pushing Warren, as her rising poll numbers seem to indicate.

Roger Good I disagree Roger. She’s unhappy that she’s not doing better but her complaints about the process are hollow.

You know what? I think your points about hypocrisy are not totally off-base. I get that you all consider every stage of life a person from conception to deathbed. On that basis, there are some sizes that I and PP both consider of lesser value. As does most of our society. I think the key difference here is that PP doesn't consider those sizes (really developmental stages, but okay, fine, those more or less go together) to be fully human, and so they don't get the same rights as an independently living human.
I'm on board with that view, but I get that you all are not.

So, here you go: I was wrong to rant about the hypocrisy thing. Knock yourselves out.

https://tenor.com/SFTZ.gif

Yay, Mom! Glad you are back to doing what you enjoy!

Ryan Hamstra Umm, no, that doesn't follow. Maybe they are killing them for a different reason than their size. You are assuming a reasoning for the observed actions that is not clear from the data you've provided. Perhaps it's related to their state of development, or location in the world, not size per se. Ways to test this: do their actions demonstrate a lack of value for all creatures of that size? Do they demonstrate a gradation of actions that can correlate to size across a wide range of sizes? For example, perhaps they also value infants less than toddlers - can you find actions to support that?

Ryan Hamstra That is not an explanation of Planned Parenthood's hypocrisy. Hypocrisy means saying one thing but doing its opposite. It does not mean doing something one doesn't like or believes to be immoral. Please try to be better at discussing things as if we were educated, rational beings.

Sandy Cartwright trim nailer

“What they do” is about stage of development and physical relationship to other humans, not body size. I see no hypocrisy. If you do, please explain it.

In what way is this hypocrisy? Can you cite a quote where Planned Parenthood claims that fetuses have fewer rights due to their size (as opposed to the stage of development)?

Judy Greenberg Hirsch air driven nail gun

Morgan Rumpf I know! I put my email on the list for when they are back in stock.

You might also like the author’s comic, http://oglaf.com/ (but some are very NSFW!)

I've never used one before today. Just installed a room full of baseboard (already cut and dry-fit) in a few minutes.

It’s a little more complex than this short meme implies: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ny-dems-block-tuition-aid-gold-star/

Judy Greenberg Hirsch yes I remember, and ummm...I’m at work? Don’t send me videos like this to watch and get emotionally mule-kicked by when I’m at work, please? (jk)

First day of taping and mudding. Very long day.

Marilyn Lescoulie Hayes Laurel’s

Judy Greenberg Hirsch

One down; five to go!

Judy Greenberg Hirsch it’s a tool to lift a sheet of drywall up to the ceiling so you can screw it there. Otherwise it’s hard to drywall the ceiling by yourself.

Joel O'Connor You think I would do this on a rental?

Happy anniversary, cousin!

Whitney Klein I spotted him in one

Damn, that’s a bummer Joel! I’m sorry to hear it.

Oh Joel, I’m flattered.

Yes; I'm doing the whole thing.

And look what came in my email today from Fine Homebuilding! So timely!

Jeez! Some people. SMH

Bruce Hamilton You are misreading the meme and my point, and again are mixing up health insurance with health care. Do you have evidence to support your claim that California is giving free health care to "illegal immigrants"? What I see is that they are giving free health care to low-income people, *some of whom* are undocumented immigrants. The part I claim is false/misleading is that both you and the meme imply that *all* undocumented people are being offered free health care, when in fact only low-income undocumented people are. If you and the meme included the word "some", then I'd have no problem, and I'd call it factual.

Now to the meat of the policy: these people are going to get care, in our country, whether or not they can afford to pay. They got care twenty years ago, and ten years ago, and last year, and this year, and will be getting care ten years from now. That's because we aren't willing to let people die on our streets (which I see as a good thing). Because they cannot pay, and because their caregivers have to put food on their table, it means the rest of society is going to pay for their care. So, the only remaining question is: do you want to pay more for their care, or less? I choose less, and the best way to pay less for their care overall is to get them out of the emergency room and into a regular doctor's office. And the way to do that is to give them health insurance.

What is your preference for the undocumented mother with a sick child? What would your preferred policy have her do?

Russ obviously I don’t know the true rationale for that rule. And that is way off-topic from what your post was about or what my response was, which is always annoying when done to me.

That said, I can imagine people gaming the system by creating a “business” in order to get a business-type health insurance deal, and the rule requiring another employee would address that.

Ed Hirsch I remember that the “table wine” in Italy was much better than that of France (20 years ago).

Shannon Scott closet to two orders of magnitude. 😳

Whitney Klein

Whitney Klein

Judy Greenberg Hirsch pretty stiff and sore

Judy Greenberg Hirsch yes. Heading home now

Ate after-race burritoughnut. Something between amazing and disgusting.

Done! Not too bad.

Love these!

This is false, or at least misleading, Russ. By posting this, you are perhaps conflating health insurance with health care, which, at some level, is free for all people in our country (meaning they can go to an emergency room and get care regardless of their ability to pay, just like you or me).

While it is true that some proposed plans will include health insurance for everyone in this country, it is only free for those who cannot afford to pay (so a well-off "illegal alien" would still be required to pay, and a poor US citizen would not). This is arguably the best way to keep health care costs down overall, since the poor family who takes their kid to the emergency room is costing all of us more than if they had taken her to the doctor's office a day earlier. Under our current system, we all pay for that family's care now, through elevated hospital costs, and indirectly elevated health insurance costs. I personally would prefer that the family incur smaller costs for us all to cover.

Are you suggesting that this family should not be eligible for health care, since they cannot pay for it? What should they do about their sick child?

Wow! That’s crazy! Glad you’re okay.

My two favorite ladies!

Thanks so much for taking pictures and posting them Mom!

Andrew Robinson Good idea; I’m in!

Sawyer will be there

Morgan Rumpf Things are good here. Miss you too! Hope you guys are well and happy, too! :)

It was supposed to be 4 miles. Tomorrow is supposed to be 6-8...we'll see.

This *was* the shorter run!

So sorry things are starting off in a hard place for you, Mom! We all love you.

Yay pods!! Love you all!

I know, Gerry! Why don’t they stop? I’d like them to stop or at least slow down a little.

Emily Borda we saw Matt & the kids at drop-off! So glad there will be a bunch of friends together!

The boy in the plastic bubble ventures out into the disease-filled world...

Well, Russ, no. Not all scientific studies are equal. These do not appear to be peer-reviewed (pretty much anybody can publish anything in arxiv.org). There is a very strong consensus among climate researchers about supporting the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change, backed by not only first principles but also by thousands of peer-reviewed research papers. For those of us who are not experts in any particular scientific field, consensus is the best guide to the hypothesis most likely to be true.
We can also use meta-data to gauge the strength of a scientific hypothesis: whether it's survived peer review, and the stature of the author(s). Digging in on these points here, the principle author is an undergraduate and the second author is a lecturer (not a professor). He/she doesn't list this paper on his/her webpage (https://www.utu.fi/en/people/pekka-malmi). That doesn't give me much confidence in this hypothesis, especially when it is contradicted by thousands of other papers.

Russ, everybody in these science fields knows about magnetic reversals, and shifting location of the geomagnetic pole over time. There is excellent data for geomagnetic reversals over geologic history, especially in the last 200 Million years or so (see the stripes here: https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/timescale/timescl.pdf), and there is very good climate data. There is only weak correlation between the frequency of reversals and climate. There is pretty good correlation between CO2 and climate.
The key thing is not the motion of the pole, but the strength of the field in terms of possible climate effects.
Further, climate models already account for this factor, although they are continually refining of course.

So this data set does that change the fact that we are the problem.

I loved it too!

One of the perks of living in the County!

No injuries at all.

It went well! No permanent injuries. 😆

I fucking wish to fucking acknowledge this as the fucktastic day of your fucking birth. 😉🎉

Weird that the photo included is a completely inoffensive one. Why didn’t they show the mural itself? Maybe because the position of the students would be less offensive and some of their readers might sympathize with the position and even understand how a black or native kid might be legitimately upset by it? Here’s a better news source for this issue, which includes images of the mural: https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/Fate-of-controversial-SF-high-school-mural-down-14008090.php

Um... I have it on good authority that, actually, these citizens were the ones who had the idea, and they called their local congressman (Rep. McCoy) and he said, "You're right. It ought to be a law." And then he sat down and wrote it out and introduced it to Congress. 😉https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag?t=65

That’s great!

Pati Abbott got about halfway through it. But we have (potentially) all the seasons of Glee now: they liked it.

Pati Abbott we’ve seen them both.

Amy Mossoff they liked it!

Mike Hughes Quick links for other topics:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-for-public-lands-e4be1d88a01c
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-green-manufacturing-plan-for-america-fc0ad53ab614
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/no-president-is-above-the-law-f4812e580336
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/congressional-action-to-protect-choice-aaf94ed25fb5
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/its-time-to-reduce-corporate-influence-at-the-pentagon-98f52ee0fcf1
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/our-military-can-help-lead-the-fight-in-combating-climate-change-2955003555a3
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-comprehensive-plan-to-end-the-opioid-crisis-9d85deaa3ccb
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-provide-comprehensive-debt-relief-to-puerto-rico-f8b575a81b06
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-improve-our-military-housing-b1a46ba235b8
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-calling-for-something-truly-transformational-universal-free-public-college-and-cancellation-of-a246cd0f910f
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-proposing-a-big-new-idea-the-real-corporate-profits-tax-29dde7c960d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-its-time-to-scare-corporate-america-straight/2019/04/02/ca464ab0-5559-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?fbclid=IwAR00CoBBBRrkzYBqQo3i5Nv8HisRmW7FFwwm57P7hn501RVeKhllLNIgHXk&utm_term=.d04325353f04
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/leveling-the-playing-field-for-americas-family-farmers-823d1994f067
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/its-time-to-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college-20efcac09c5e
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-housing-plan-for-america-20038e19dc26
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-for-universal-child-care-762535e6c20a
https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7

You're welcome. :)

Mike Hughes You are using the wrong links on her page. Go to Recent Announcements and click the links at the top of each.

They lead you to pages like this: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7 Which include pretty detailed goal, plan, and priority statements like this:

"Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises. Like any investor, taxpayers should get a return on the risky investments they are making in R&D. That can take various forms. Taxpayers can: get an equity stake in any company that relies on intellectual property these investments create; retain royalties on publicly funded innovation or a golden-share of the patent revenue; or require the companies benefitting from publicly funded R&D to reinvest profits back into domestic production, R&D, and worker training programs, rather than into stock buybacks."

Congratulations! Great to hear!

That's nice of you, Mom. I'm sure they will appreciate it.

Tiana Galloway the government hasn’t funded abortions since 1977 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment

If you don’t print color much then a black&white laser printer is the best long-term deal. Plus the quality and speed are far better. I have a Brother that has been going strong for 10? years. Only purchased one new toner cartridge IIRC

I totally had one of these and played it 'til it broke.

It was pretty good. Some of what I expected, and a little bit of surprise, too.

Also His Dark Materials, to get those swords & sorcery folks.

And another: https://www.acamporatravel.it/tour-dettaglio.php?IdAttivo=239

First page of Google results: https://pompeii.refutur.com/en/

More broadly, I think the point is that memes like this exist mostly in a liberal social media echo chamber (I'm in the chamber myself - I have about two conservative Facebook friends). And so what we are doing here is getting all riled up and angry, which is fine as far as it goes. But we sometimes fail to realize that most of the electorate is not like us. And I don't (just) want to get angry, I want to effect positive change in the country, damnit. And the only long-term way to do that in my view, is convince those who are at least somewhat to the right of us. I am of the view that that kind of convincing is impossible with memes like this, which do not address the concerns of the more conservative members of the electorate.

I think this guy has a very good take on the issue: https://slate.com/technology/2010/11/what-pro-choicers-can-learn-from-the-princeton-abortion-conference.html

Pete Stelling I totally agree with all these points. And I also think at the same time that ignoring the basic question at the core of the debate (when is a fetus deserving of rights) will cause us to always always lose. So if our goal is to actually achieve political change, rather than just rant to like-minded people about how fucked up the issue is, then I believe we have to engage with this basic question.
Because there are people who believe that these embryos are equal in status to children. And if you or I believed that, we would be taking the exact same positions they are! I would not want to be part of a society that allows parents to kill their children, and I don't think you would either, no matter the cost to the parents.
If we cannot address this fundamental question head-on, we will always lose at the ballot box on this issue, and in the courts (over a longer term).

Or when he's a Supreme Court Justice. >:( Or the governor of Alabama or Georgia. >:( Or...

Happy birthday Max!

Stuart Hatfield could you elaborate?

You know, I've seen this post a number of times in the last day or two, and others kind of like it, and they make me sad and disappointed in us liberals. We need to argue better than this. Arguments like this one make it seem like the issue is black and white, like the other side is completely out of bounds, like it's only about women's bodies. I don't think that's the case, and I don't think that liberals actually believe that is the case. Furthermore, arguments like this will not win over the vast middle ground of Americans to our side.
Before I dive in, I want to emphasize that I think there should be no restrictions on abortion. I think abortion should be safe, legal, free, and rare (to adapt a Bill Clinton line). No child should come into the world who isn't 100% wanted by his or her parent(s). All decisions about gestation and child-bearing should be made by a woman, her partner if that's relevant, and her doctor.
But think about this: I think we all agree that once a baby is viable outside the womb, it should have some rights. I think that we would be horrified if a parent wanted to terminate a viable fetus without a fairly good reason. I think that we all agree that prior to fertilization, there are no rights. I think that most liberals would agree with me that in the moment after fertilization, the zygote should not have any rights. If you believe that the zygote has no rights, and the viable fetus has some rights, then what's in between? At some point the developing being must gain rights. We have to grapple with the idea that it is NOT just a matter of the woman's body, that there is another creature which has some rights at some point. I happen to believe that at all stages of development, a woman's rights outweigh those of the developing human, but others may not, and science doesn't provide a way to decide this question. We have to engage with the dilemma, have difficult discussions about it, tell stories to those on the other side of the argument to convince them.
By treating it in a simplistic way, we do a disservice to the gravity of the issue, and we will only show those on the other side that we don't care about their viewpoint, that we aren't thinking deeply about the topic. They will continue to stay entrenched in their position and will vote against us at the ballot box. This kind of thing is therefore counter-productive to achieving our political goals.

Chanterelle Trail! Not very strenuous, and nice view at the top.

That would be fun! Would definitely need to practice.

Whitney Klein yes! 363-7991

Jeremy Hirsch, Whitney Klein - Do you remember it too?

Judy Greenberg Hirsch Saturday

Jackie Caplan-Auerbach but we already more or less have such a category (high-testosterone competitors): men’s sports. I admit that I was surprised that there wasn’t a stronger testosterone effect in track and field, but I bet there are sports where the effect is much larger, and I think it makes sense to come up with a general standard (which might take into account the varying effect of testosterone in different sports).
I don’t have a recommendation, but I am suspicious of any simple answer because I think the issue is complex.
Here’s a question for you: when you say that separate but equal is a bad idea in sport, are you suggesting that there should be no men’s and women’s sports categories? Aren’t those separate but equal (as long as we don’t pay attention to salaries, etc.)?

Judy Greenberg Hirsch WatchGuard partners (like is) and distributors from North and South America. Watchguard makes the firewalls we use.

There is a good RadioLab describing this incident and the long long history of gender determination in sports. I don’t think there is any simple answer here, and if you say anybody who lives their life as a woman can compete as a woman, you have to grapple with the alleged cases of USSR suspect athletes in the 60s as well as the (rare) impostors. How would you prefer that international sports bodies handle or prevent those kinds of cases? (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/dutee)

I also don’t think there is a good parallel with Phelps or Bol, since there are not enough people to form a separate competing class of low-lactic-acid swimmers or (maybe) extremely tall basketball players. (Although one can argue that the latter has already happened)

Pati Abbott I did!

Looks beautiful mom!

Brady O'Brien Watchguard international conference for the Americas! (Ended a couple hours ago)

Hope it was a good event!! ❤️

Finally landed in PR. 1 am local time. A long day of traveling. Luckily conference events don’t start until tomorrow afternoon.

Robert Mark Reed good idea. We’ll see how long we’re here.

Birds had hit the plane that was supposed to fly from DFW to PR. Stuck in DFW for a while at least. ☹️
Fucking birds.

I also recall when I found out this fact and my mind was blown, too. :)

In fact there is a kind of crossword puzzle where you have to also figure out where the black squares are, and the symmetry is a valuable tool in solving those.

True-ish. Professionally made ones are (with rare exceptions). But anybody could make one that isn’t, and most people would recognize that thing as a “crossword puzzle”.

Thanks!

Tom Weinstein Okay, good point.

Tom Weinstein I disagree about conservation of energy. They aren’t losing or creating energy, just moving it around. The perpetual motion argument is a better one.

Tom Weinstein from what I read, it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The overall energy of the universe still increases. That doesn’t exactly address your concern, I realize, and I’m a little skeptical as well. But wouldn’t it be cool if it were true?

So cute!!

You’re awesome, Morgan! I’m sure it’s going to be a great year!❤️

So you’re saying people should take my advice?

Looks good Mom!

This picture was taken right after first seeing the “showgirls”. Laurel is troubled.

Michael Davis I’m aware of this. I was being lazy. That doesn’t change my point.

Russ Granger I agree that the notion of representing land is silly. Yet, isn't that what Baio is advocating, specifically when he writes things like "it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election"?

Who cares about the area - it's people that matter.

By posting this, it appears that you are suggesting that what matters in a democracy is that the elected officials should be representing land, not people. Is that correct?

Porn (1980s-1990s)

Oh, and if you are being intellectually consistent, then by the logic you and Hannity are using, (in which the lack of indictments indicates proof that nothing improper happened), you must conclude that nothing improper happened in a bunch of "scandals" that you seemed to care a lot about in the recent past, including:
- Uranium One
- Clinton's role in the Benghazi attack
- Hillary's email server
and, also: the Steele dossier.

So, which is it? Lack of indictments on a topic mean there's nothing to see there, or maybe we actually do have to judge for ourselves based on the contents of the investigation?

Or just maybe (and I think this is the most likely position you actually hold, based on your writing): lack of indictments mean everything's just fine, so long as it's your side being investigated, and when it's the other side being investigated, then we should have a different standard of judgement?

You don't yet know what the FBI found, Russ, and neither does Sean Hannity. He is merely drawing inferences from the lack of further indictments. His inferences may indeed turn out to be correct, but at this time they are premature.

However, since you are so sure that there is nothing incriminating in the report, I'm sure you will be eager to have it released in full to the public, right?

But, you know, I hope you're right. I hope that there was no collusion. I hope that Trump was just bullshitting when he asked the Russians to hack the emails of a presidential candidate. It sucks that they did so on that very day, but I hope that we don't have a Manchurian Candidate president, because that would be a very bad thing.

The absence of an indictment doesn't mean "no collusion", because Mueller might well be following DoJ policy which is that sitting presidents are not to be indicted. If we ever see the report, we'll be able to judge for ourselves.

Hannity doesn't claim to have read the report either. He's just guessing and/or blowing smoke.

Ah, so, you've seen what's in the report? I thought it was pretty tightly held. I haven't heard that it was released to the public.

What do you mean by "Nothing!", Russ?

""No, but a vacuum is likely not the same as whatever came before our universe." - which was nothing" Do you have evidence for this claim that what came before our universe was "nothing"?

""Whatever was before our universe is unknowable... We don't know and cannot know." - We can know and do know, because God made it" I disagree with this claim that God made it. Do you have evidence for this claim that God made the universe, evidence other than your Book? Do you have evidence as to the physical nature of reality, pre-Universe?

"I think it's a bit moot to say that nothing initiated, started, *insert your term of choice here* everything." I don't believe I ever said that. You keep attempting to put those words in my mouth, but I don't think I've agreed to them. If you continue to mischaracterize my position, then I am not going to continue this discussion.

"then you are essentially saying, "I am correct because I say I am correct" - I never made myself the arbiter of truth, nor have I said I'm right because I say I'm right" - You misunderstood my point. I didn't really mean you, Courtney, are saying that; I meant your religion is doing so. The religion (through you) says "I am the true religion". I ask the religion (through you) to prove it. The religion says, "My book says so!". But the religion wrote that book, so the religion is saying "I am the true religion because this book that I wrote says so". That, to me, is basically "I'm correct because I say I am correct".

"I have a foundation for truth because someone (God) greater than me has revealed these things to me in his scripture, and everyone else has this revelation of him by his creation, and if they have access to his word." - But I don't accept your fictional God, and I don't accept the truth of your Book, so anything you marshal along those lines to convince me, is worthless to me.

""Anything from inside your religion saying it is the special one is just more of your religion making the claim to be special, not outside evidence." - no, because we can look at the source." No, Courtney, we cannot look at the source, because you and I disagree about the source. When you look at the source, you perceive an omniscient creator. When I look at the source, I see a fictional entity created by humans long ago. You reasonably believe that your source is correct, and I have grave doubts about that. And that is why any religious evidence for the truth of the religion is circular.

"See, you can't make any factual claims because we can just follow the rabbit hole of "who says this is true?" If in your example, Dave is the source, we can know it's not Dave because Dave doesn't know everything" Okay, fair point. In that case, let's consider an alternate religion that has an omniscient god. I'm not much of a religious scholar, but Shiva is often supposed to be omniscient it seems. So, Hinduism says that Shiva is all-knowing, and although Hinduism appears to be fairly diverse theologically, there are some exclusivist strains. So, that means there are Hindu writings from an omniscient God that says your God is false. Now it's not fallible Dave who is saying your God is fiction, but omniscient Shiva. How are you going to settle that dilemma?

"for 1, it's because it's not the God of the universe that we all know through his revelation, but 2 because they can't reveal themselves because they're all either engraved images (material) or some knock off of the God of the bible. Or, no god: i.e. - you're your own god whether you see it that way or not" - So who made you the arbiter of what counts as a good enough deity? And how does the fact that other religions don't measure up in your eyes count as them "falling at their knees"?

""I don't see why I should believe in something without evidence. That doesn't seem to me to be good for me personally, or for humanity in general." - but how can you know that for sure?" I don't claim to know that for sure. That's why I wrote "seem to me". But I can certainly make my own judgements for what I choose to believe, just as you can.

"Why are you arguing if something is good or not if you can't even make a certain claim that something IS good?" I'm not actually. The "good" thing is not core to my argument. I choose not to believe in things without evidence. That fits with my personal value system. I do not begrudge you your choice to believe without having what I would consider evidence.

""Here you quoted me stating words I did not write. That is not cool." - it's been a bit too far back for me to remember, but I'm pretty sure I copy/pasted this" - The full text of our exchange is right here on this page, stored nicely by Facebook so we can refer to it. What you quoted me as saying is not there.

"so in your worldview, there is no real morality or immorality" - Again, you are mischaracterizing my position. I do believe that there is morality, just that it need not come from a fictional creator or some book. I understand it must be nicer to argue with somebody who holds stupid ideas like "there is not right or wrong", but perhaps you might consider finding out whether I actually hold that view before chastising me for espousing it?

Potentially. Also, here is a good podcast on this general topic (on background, not specifically about your example): https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/109-facebook-spying

Or did you mention it to anybody before the ad came up? Even if you didn't search the web for it, if they did, it could have gotten linked to you.

Ooh! That is weird then. Some stores are using a new technology to track where in the store people go, based on a kind of micro-triangulation with wifi hot spots. Maybe Michaels is doing that? (http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/325181/The_Truth_on_In-Store_Analytics_WiFi_iBeacon_and_Video_in_Retail.pdf)

Also, it wouldn't be Visa/MC/AMEX that is selling your data in this case; it would be Michaels.

Did you buy it with a credit card? If so, there's probably a profile of you or your device that links your credit card with your other online profile details and boom: you get ads for something you just bought (thanks, internet: that's genius).

Did the store where you got it specialize in those things? It probably knew you were there via GPS and / or device fingerprinting.

Silly!😆

Excited to have you all closer again!

"So if we set up a vacuum that verifiably had 0 molecules in it, and it had billions of years to sit, eventually we would see life in that vacuum?" - No, but a vacuum is likely not the same as whatever came before our universe.

"How is that different than everything came from nothing? At least in this case, there's already an existing world around this vacuum. Nothing is nothing, if there is something there, then it's not nothing. It's a logical fallacy" - I disagree. Whatever was before our universe is unknowable. Maybe it was nothing in the sense you mean, but maybe it wasn't. We don't know and cannot know. And please be clearer about the logical fallacy you think I'm making in my argument.

""How can you prove that your God is real, and theirs are all fictional?" - because he revealed Himself to us, no other god has." - This is patently false. All the other gods have revealed themselves to their believers in exactly the same way yours has revealed himself to you. They all have books or other official words from their deity describing the way that their god is true and others, including yours, are false.

""You cannot cite your book as evidence, because I do not accept the truth of your book." - who made you the arbiter of truth?" - Nobody, but it appeared you were trying to convince me of the truth of your religion. If you are trying to convince me of the truth of your religion, and your response is that your religion's book says that your religion is the True one, then you are essentially saying, "I am correct because I say I am correct". And at that point we aren't having a debate anymore, and I walk away, unconvinced and unimpressed.

"I have the same outside evidence that you do, and I already cited it to you: Romans 1:18." - That's not outside evidence, that's inside evidence. If I claim I am actually a space alien, and I give you as evidence a paper I wrote stating "Dave is a space alien", you should say that's not evidence, it's just you making the claim. Anything from inside your religion saying it is the special one is just more of your religion making the claim to be special, not outside evidence.

"Other religions can point to a god as their origin but they very quickly fall at their knees." What do you mean by "other religions fall at their knees"? If it's a claim of objective truth, not just a subjective opinion, please provide evidence (again, something other than your religion claiming it's the bestest specialest one of all, and that all the others are sucky).

"With atheism, you can't make a single knowledge claim because you have no foundation. To do so you would have to borrow from my worldview (I realize now I didn't answer this for you the first time, so I can circle back to this if you'd like). You have no possible way to make a certain knowledge claim." Finally, something good to discuss! You're right. I cannot claim to know for certain that no God exists. Just as you cannot know for certain that one does exist. That is why it is called faith. I choose to believe that no God exists because I have seen no evidence for one, and I don't see why I should believe in something without evidence. That doesn't seem to me to be good for me personally, or for humanity in general.

""I claim you just lack sufficient imagination." - so our reality is based on imagining something to happen that we cannot prove?" - No. I was just saying that when you make a claim along the lines of, "I cannot imagine a way in that our universe could exist without a designer", it is not valid to then conclude "therefore there must have been a designer". *That* is a logical fallacy, because it presumes that you are able to imagine every possibility within a reality (lacking of a better term for whatever pre-dated our universe) that is not our own. I was not arguing that "our reality is based on imagining" anything.

You wrote: "you end up contradicting your own point. You say "this complex structure is sort of silly to happen on it's own bc it needs a designer, but this one doesn't"" - Here you quoted me stating words I did not write. That is not cool.

"What makes the Maserati a silly example?" - I answered this right there in black and white. It's right after the words "that is a silly question, because". If that justification is insufficiently clear, please be more specific as to what part you didn't understand.

"Can you point me to what materials in our brain make up "justice"?" - I don't think we have a good enough understanding of the brain to fully point to which neurons and connections embody a simpler concept like "dog", much less "justice". However, our inability to do so does not mean that such ideas are not embodied in our brains. The fact that some concepts and skills are lost during some kinds of brain injury supports the idea that these things do have physical embodiments in our brains.

Thanks, Lauren!

Thanks, Noli!

Thanks, Laura!

Thanks Megan!

Thanks Becky! Miss you guys!

Thanks Matteo

Thanks Adam!

Thanks, Jorge!

Thanks, Kelly!

Thanks, Ashley!

Message received. :)

Thanks, Joanne!

Thanks, Scott!

Thanks, Adam!

Thanks, Viva!

Thanks, Uncle Mel!

Thanks, Tom!

Thanks, Aunt Bev!

Thanks, Dave!

Thanks, anya!

Thanks, Joumana!

Thanks, Dan.

Thank you Hannah! I hope the decade includes a visit at some point

Basically. Miss you, Morgan!

"I'm guessing with your first and second paragraph that you believe in some sort of deity then to kickoff things?" - No, I do not. I cannot rule that out though, since we have no information about what leads to the creation of universes. We are like the critters inside a simulation: there is no way for them to know about how the simulation got started. (And please don't say that since in our world simulations only get made by intelligent creators, that means I believe there must have been an intelligent creator of our universe. My point is that there is no way to know. Maybe there was a creator who set up our universe and then was hands-off from that point forward, or maybe this Big Bang thing is all there is, and it "just happened". Or maybe time is a loop, and at the end of our universe, it will all start again, forever, without any creator to set it up. Or maybe every universe that could happen, does happen, without a creator to cause it, just because that's what happens in the metaverse. We *cannot* know.)

"Otherwise you would have to claim contradiction that nothing created everything" - No, there is no contradiction. You are stuck in your language by the word "created". That word implies your conclusion (there was an intelligent creator). Which is why I used the word "arise": something can arise with an intelligent agent causing it, but also without. A storm can arise without an intelligent agent causing it. This statement of yours shows you didn't understand my analogy to Conway's Game of Life. With randomness and some feedback, things (even big, persistent ones) can just arise in a complex system. Like a storm can. There's no evidence that a storm is created by an intelligence. The same thing could be true of our whole universe, or parts of it.

"How do you explain the differing conclusions that various cultures have arrived at by observing the same natural world?" - "Mans rebellion and intent to flee from God and pursue their own sinful desires by creating their own type of god to worship" - So, every other religion except yours "created their own God". How can you prove that your God is real, and theirs are all fictional? You cannot cite your book as evidence, because I do not accept the truth of your book. Almost all the (to-you) false religions have books, too; their books say that your religion is false. You cannot cite your dogma (Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc.) as evidence, because I do not accept the truth of your dogma. They all have dogma, too, and that dogma says that your religion is false. You need outside evidence to show that yours is true and theirs are all false. Got any?

"I have a couple questions for you too. If this deity only creates the big bang in relation to your example of Conway's Game of Life, how could design and complex structures come from randomness and chaos?" - Again, your language pre-supposes your desired conclusion. When you say "design" exists in the natural world, you are pre-supposing a designer. I do not accept that. Just because you cannot imagine the natural world without a designer doesn't mean that is the case. I claim you just lack sufficient imagination.

"If I had enough time, could I blow up materials enough times and at some point have a Maserati?" This is kind of a vague question, but I'll do my best. Yes, if you have enough time, and all the atoms, they will eventually form a Maserati. But that is a silly question, because the time involved is extremely long, and that kind of random assembly of very large, complex items strictly via randomness and trial and error is not what I claim is going on, nor is it what any intelligent person is claiming (again, see: Straw Man Argument). The better point is that in a complex system, with randomness and energy, complex structures may arise without being created intentionally. The storm example above is a decent one. Weather is a complex system, with randomness and energy, while at the same time being governed by some basic rules (physics). The results include complex structures in the atmosphere (e.g., thunderstorms, tornadoes), and these structures do not need anyone to make them appear. Something analogous is what I believe produces all the contents of the universe, including us, and probably also the universe itself (but I have no evidence for the universe part - it's just my hunch).

"And I forget the term, materialist? Naturalist? The belief that everything is material and there is no such thing as the immaterial (such as souls)..but is that something you believe is true or do you believe that people have a soul/spirit?" Definitely materialist. No souls, no spirit. Before I was born, there was no "me", and after I'm dead, there will be no "me" once again.

Thanks, Mom! Love you, and I know you would be up here if you could. You’ll be with us in spirit.

Bruce Hamilton Here is an argument against voter ID laws: very poor or homeless people, and very old people often do not have identification. My grandmother who was in a nursing home for the last part of her life did not have a valid ID for much of that time. Should she be denied the right to vote? Voting is a right, not a privilege, and it is among the most precious in our democracy. Removing the rights of such people to vote violates the most basic tenets of our democracy. Your claim that "If you can't figure out a way to get an ID in two years, you are too stupid to vote anyway" is offensive, and I hope that when you are very old and with limited mobility, and limited access to government resources, you will continue to be afforded the right to vote, even if you can't manage to get yourself a valid ID.

It is not the case the only those who have means get to participate in our democracy.

Russ Granger The fact that you and California can't say whether non-citizens voted does not provide evidence that non-citizens voted. Do you have evidence that in-person voter fraud is anything but miniscule? The fact that a highly edited video, which O'Keefe refuses to release the entirety of, includes an operative appearing to claim that in-person voted fraud is possible, does not constitute evidence that such fraud has occurred. I reiterate that big powerful Federal committees have tried to marshal such evidence, and failed. This, to me, suggests that such evidence does not exist.

Courtney Hicks I suppose I would have to be called agnostic, but only in the sense that the evidence allows for a deistic creator. I am agnostic about a creator who sets up the fundamental constants of the universe and starts the Big Band. I emphatically disbelieve in a creator who created the complex structures we see in the world (including life) and even more strongly disbelieve in a creator who continues to intervene in the universe around us.

For the minecraft example: I was responding to your comments about my citation of Conway's Game of Life. You said the fact that somebody has to set up the rules of the simulation means that, by analogy, I'm supporting a creator. I was countering that, no, you were claiming that God didn't merely set up the system of the world (a deistic creator) but actually created its contents (a judeo-christian creator). My point (in the Conway comment above) was, and is, that in a complex system, you can get complex structures that arise without a creator creating them. There must be preconditions for such arisings (if that's a word), but there need not be intelligence behind them. So, I reiterate that an intelligence is not necessary for complex structures, just a universe with appropriate preconditions. Such a universe might be setup by an intelligent creator, but there is no evidence to require a creator for the setup of such a universe. (And neither your faith nor the existence of the universe around us counts as evidence).

As for your claim that "God has made his attributes clear to us ... in the things that have been made": First, it's far from clear to me. Second, are you suggesting that humans can perceive the nature of God in the natural world around us? If so, how do you explain the differing conclusions that various cultures have arrived at by observing the same natural world? Which of these is the correct version of God? Yours? How do you justify that, if so?

Time Bandits FTW! I should watch this with the kids. I think it's basically PG, right? It's been a long time.

So all countries that ban guns will have massive power outages? Is that the claim you are making here, Russ? Or all countries that ban guns will be socialist authoritarian regimes? If you make a clearer point rather than just subtly implying things, we can have a better discussion.

I would write a note, including your contact information and leave it on the cars. But make it a nice note. Imagine that they are doing this by accident and they truly don’t know it’s posing a problem for you or anyone else. (Not because that’s the case but because they are likely to respond better if written that way).

David Nicholson Ah, I see. The problem with that construction is that it assumes that the person who is "good" today, will still be "good" tomorrow. I don't believe that. I believe that people can change for the better and for the worse, so I don't accept your splitting the world into immutably "good" and "bad" people.

But to the main point you were commenting on, I will restate: "I also feel the data in the FBI report do not support the implication (mainly in the linked article) that guns are generally a good thing, and the further implication that if only more law-abiding people had guns, we'd be better off as a society."

An old advisee wanted help with thermodynamics software I used to be good at.

David Nicholson I do not disagree with the assertion that an ID is needed to vote in Mexico. And as for the data on voter fraud, there should be lots of data: it is a crime after all. We track lots of crimes. Here is one dataset: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast

And I think the burden of proof should be on your side: your side is the one making allegations of something happening in large enough numbers that we need to do something about it. In fact, wasn't there a blue-ribbon voter fraud panel setup by Trump and led by Kris Kobach? They had the full power of the federal government to collect all this data, IIRC. Hmm...what did they find again? Oh, right: "Investigations, including ones by Mr. Kobach and the Justice Department under President George W. Bush, turned up scant evidence of fraud." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html

David Nicholson How did you draw that conclusion from my words? That is not what I meant at all.
Actually, I don't even understand what part of what I wrote you are responding to; it's like you read something else and responded here. Odd.

Seriously? The rate of in-person voting fraud such as this statement alleges, is vanishingly small. And that coupled with the unfounded allegation of non-citizens voting, seems unjustified by evidence.

Finally, Russ, I’m surprised that your side wants to bring attention to the issue of election fraud, given the Republican’s illegal actions in NC.

I feel that the headline here is misleading because:
- This is not an FBI statement
- It's not supporting the 2nd Amendment

And I also feel the data in the FBI report do not support the implication (mainly in the linked article) that guns are generally a good thing, and the further implication that if only more people had guns, we'd be better off as a society.

AFAIK, most of these laws being proposed rely on the Federal government allowing it, which the original DST legislation prohibits (except for AZ, because f-ing AZ whined like a baby back in the 40s or something). So, for any state that passes a bill of this sort, it's kind of a as-soon-as-we're-allowed-to-do-it-we're-there kind of thing.

From that report (not a "statement", and not really "pro-2nd amendment"):
Out of the FIFTY active shooter incidents the report looked at in 2016-2017:
"In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two [of these] incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In [another] two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived. In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting."
Other parts of this allegedly "Pro-2nd Amendment" FBI document, published a year ago:
There were 943 casualties including 221 people killed.
Eight shooters were stopped by citizens (including the four stopped by citizens with guns.

So...just as many shooters were stopped by citizens without guns as were stopped by citizens with guns. And in this "pro-2nd amendment" report, we find that the guns of the shooters killed or wounded 943 people in just two years.

So: Yay, 2nd Amendment. You are the best of all amendments. 🤮

Courtney, I agree with you, partly, on the third point: the data that we have allows for a deistic creator: one who sets up the system and then is hands-off from there forward. I allow that is possible, but not, in my view, required. Nevertheless, that is not what you or the article are talking about, if I understand both correctly. You were talking about a creator who intentionally creates what we see around us (the "complex structures" in your earlier quote), not one who sets up a system that might lead to what we see around us, or might lead to something very different, perhaps something that lacks life altogether.
And when you say "something far more vast and elaborate and clearly not accidental or random in design," I disagree with the term "clearly". I don't think you or I can make judgements about what led to our universe. We have a sample size of one, and we are not equipped to know what is likely or unlikely in the universe-creation business, so there's no way to know if this universe is just what happens, or if it was designed in some way, or if there's an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to be in this one, or if there's something else even weirder going on.
So, I am an atheist because I see no evidence to support the existence of a creator. The complex structures do not require a creator, as I detailed earlier. The system we see within which these structures exist allows for, but does not require a creator.

First, Courtney, I think you and I have different understanding of the meaning of "literally". I believe it means the plain and actual meaning of the words and phrases involved, without analogies to other ideas or concepts. What do you think it means? Or perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "This" in your sentence "This is quite literally reality". I thought you meant the article. Maybe you meant something else?

Second, if I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. That clarification will be more instructive for me if you can explain it with specific quotes of your words and mine to show where I've gone wrong in my interpretation of your writing.

Now to the main point: what I'm saying is that complex structures can arise, but not out of "nothing", and they do not "build themselves": there must be preconditions that allow for complexity to arise. One can create a virtual environment with interacting agents, each following fairly simple rules, and complex structures can arise. The more complex the rules, and the more randomness in the system (up to a point), the more likely it is that complex structures will arise, especially if there is feedback in the system. An almost-trivial example of this is Conway's Game of Life, in which structures may appear and persist for a time, simply with a little randomness and some simple rules. These structures don't "build themselves" as you say, but they do arise without any external agent making them specifically (an external agent does, however, need to set up the system within which they arise, at least in this case). Here's a good online example to play with: http://www.degeneratestate.org/posts/2015/Jan/10/games-of-life/

Wow. Okay. So you are saying that this is "literally reality", which generally is not what we mean by "satire". If I'm not mistaken, it was just days ago that you were arguing we should not be taking anything from this website seriously because it was satire.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "literally reality". Do you mean that you believe this Myron Bassett lives in Auburn, WA, and has been playing Minecraft and waiting patiently with an empty world for structures to build themselves? Really? They don't provide evidence for the literal accuracy of this report, and a basic people search online suggests that no such person exists.
And this is absolutely a straw man argument, meaning one that makes a caricature of your opponent's position so you can more easily attack it. I'm an atheist, and I do not believe that complex structures build themselves out of nothing in the sense of this piece. That would be stupid (which is why it makes reasonably good satire).
Finally, please describe how my claiming it's a straw man argument means I'm "borrowing from your worldview". I don't see it.

😆 Straw man arguments are *hilarious*! 😕

I hope you get it, Jeremy!

I will ask Laurel

Courtney Hicks Okay, so everything from the Babylon Bee is satire; thanks for pointing that out. But do you actually believe the claim? When I see satire, I don't defend it because it's not meant to be interpreted as making a literal claim. You, however, are defending the literal interpretation of the claim, suggesting that you don't think it's satire.

Let's clear this up: Do you now believe that AOC's writings suggest that she has authoritarian tendencies? If so, please quote anything. Even one quote. Just one. Because you claim that it exists, and I claim it doesn't. If you would like to convince me, you will have to prove that such a quote exists (I can't prove a negative). Since you are so sure that you're right, you must have at least one piece of evidence for it, right? You obviously can't be using the Babylon Bee piece as evidence, because (wait for it...) it's *satire*.

Snark != satire

This is what yours looks like. Nothing that says "satire", explicitly or implicitly.

And if you want to see what satire looks like: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/sarah-huckabee-sanders-warns-michael-cohen-to-leave-lying-to-professionals.

It's not fair to put something up that doesn't sound satirical at all, and then, defend it seriously, and then when cornered, say, "Haha just kidding."
And "go find evidence for my argument yourself" is what people say when they have no evidence.

So, you're saying (with no evidence) maybe if she had power she would be authoritarian? One could say that about any politician. And even your point is pretty weak. What about her words (if they became actions) are authoritarian? Quote me something, please.
Meanwhile, there is actually evidence for authoritarian tendencies and actions taken by the president, and yet you haven't spoken out about that. He has taken steps to concentrate power in the executive. He has worked to bypass the normal legislative process. He has tried to silence opposing points of view. But from you: crickets. Interesting.

In what way is this authoritarian? How is she attempting to concentrate power in an executive? How is she trying to bypass the normal legislative process to enact her policies? How is she trying to silence opposing points of view?

Adam Klein they are the White Walkers

Judy Greenberg Hirsch Yeah. It’s rough here.

Apparently Springfield doesn’t know either, so I’m sticking with “Lisa”: https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/rick-springfield-explains-who-is-jessies-girl

Probably Lisa. It was released in 1981. Probably written in 1980. The girls in this kind of music are about 17. The top girl baby name of 1963 was Lisa.
🤯

Actually, I believe that a child's home environment does very strongly influence their path in life. I was never arguing for random chance. However, I believe that "home environment" includes the financial position of their parents, including the overall wealth of the neighborhood and the attendant funding and quality of schools, and the material intergenerational transfer of wealth from parents to children, and a host of other material opportunities that differ depending on the parent's financial position in life, in addition to the advice and guidance they receive, whereas you appear to believe that only guidance matters. But perhaps I'm mischaracterizing your position? David Nicholson certainly was arguing for that position, but reading back, I'm not sure you were.

Jeff Morrell I agree that some policy decisions are not easily guided by data, and abortion is one of those. I disagree that if person A's experience says that the truth is one thing, and person B's experience says that the truth is another, then policy should be in the middle. We should use data to find out what the truth is, and be guided by it.

Here's a good example: many lefties believe that GMO foods are bad for your health; many others do not. This is a question that is answerable with data, and policy should be guided by that answer, not by some vague middle ground between dangerous and safe.

Jeff Morrell I do value wisdom in a personal sense. But when different members of our society (and for the purposes of discussion we can omit college students since you seem to have a problem with them) have different policy ideas that are guided by their individual wisdom, what are we to do? I suggest that data is a better option, for those policy decisions that can be guided by data. To circle back around to where we started here: if my grandfather’s wisdom (he didn’t go to college) taught me that most poor people are poor due to circumstances beyond their control, and your wisdom says otherwise, one of us is wrong and that person’s wisdom, life experience, and common sense has led them to a false conclusion. In that case we’re stuck unless we turn to data.

It was once possible for a person’s wisdom and common sense to tell them that the Earth is flat, that it is the center of the universe, and that disease comes from bad air. None of those things were true.

Jeff Morrell there is literally one “if” in my comment.
And I’m not saying that data drives policy, especially lately, but that it *should* do so. That’s what I meant by the word “prefer” in my comment.
And the Muslim thing seems like a distraction from the discussion we were having. If not, perhaps you can explain the relevance to me?

Jeff Morrell I don’t care about wisdom (whatever that means in the context of this discussion). I care about facts and data, which should always guide policy. We may think that common sense can reveal to us what is true, but there are lots of times that has failed to be the case. That dude who published a book may be foolish compared to the 50-year old family man, but if the book cites data in support of its claims and the man cites only his gut feeling, I’d prefer we base policy decisions on the book.

Jeff Morrell It's unclear what "the opposing view" would be. Please define the claim you would like me to support.

Jeff Morrell That is not evidence. Please cite a source for your statistics

You are overqualified, but sure, come up to the land of skiing in one's own driveway.

Jeff Morrell you write “A child born into the bottom 10% (income) with two loving and supportive parents have a fantastic chance, provided he’s not taught self destructive behaviors.“

Can you support that claim with any evidence?

If you're interested, PM me.

Glad to hear it!
The Bellingham gang will be happy to be going someplace without snow. This is the view outside today:

David Nicholson Well, with your MA in Econ, you appear to have gotten the quintiles flipped around. :) Kids born into the richest quintile Q5 have only an 11% chance of ending up in the poorest as adults, and have a much better than average chance (30%) of living in the top quintile as adults.

And actually, the poverty line is pretty close to the top of Q2. So what this really means is that about half of the people born into poverty (Q1 & Q2) stay in poverty as adults. Regardless, I stand by my assertion that your experience (poverty to 1%) is not typical.

Here's some evidence to support my assertion that your experience is not typical. A serious study (http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/saving-horatio-alger.html) shows that only 10% of kids born into the lowest 20% (Q1) of income will end up in the top 20% (Q5) on income as adults. I've attached the relevant graph here. (Here's a writeup of their data sources: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/08/21/saving-horatio-alger-the-data-behind-the-words-and-the-lego-bricks/)

David Nicholson Do you have evidence to support your assertion that your experience (pulling yourself up from poverty to the 1%) is the typical experience, either for 1-percenters or children of poverty? I would like to see it if so.

Also, you seem to be really angry about this topic.

David Nicholson Glad to hear you've pulled yourself up by your bootstraps; that doesn't mean your experience is typical.

David Nicholson I disagree; it's like saying that a person who can't throw or run with a ball can't be a good offensive coordinator. The quality of one's ideas about a topic are not necessarily related to one's experience.

Jeff Morrell Cool, well, I think you are the exception, not the rule. What do you mean by "privilege" in your statement "some privilege is earned by your parents and that's okay"?

Oh, and I also forgot to ask about any of these kinds of financial help that people might get from their parents:
- investing in your business
- watching your sick kid so you don't have to take time off work
- handing down needed items as gifts (their old car, furniture, etc.)
- giving you a first job at the family business
- getting you a first job where they work or from someone they know

And none of these things are bad! It's good for parents to help their kids! I have college savings funds for my kids and so do everyone I know. Do you? Are you helping your own kids get off to a good start in life, materially? Or just advice and motivation?

My point is that while I can help my kids in these concrete ways, a person who is struggling probably can't. This means that his kids and my kids don't start off with equal opportunities in life. And, circling back to the original point, this means that his kid's credit score (etc.) doesn't reflect only the choices that she makes, but also the poor start she got in life.

Jeff Morrell Okay, cool. Would love to pick this up again when you have more time to answer those questions about the help you received from your parents.

Jeff Morrell So you got zero help from your parents or grandparents at all, other than advice and motivation? No loans, no help paying for school, nothing at all concrete once you were 18? No family connection to decent first job? No help with your first down payment on a house? No inheritance from grandparents or parents? If so, I think you are the exception not the rule. I have definitely had help, and I think most people do get help.

You asked "Why would a Chinese investment be central to your argument?" It's not, which is why I put the work "say" in there. Just making the point that very rich people have a different set of financial choices than you or I (making an assumption here that you are middle-class).

You write "only 3% of America’s top 10% of earners was in that group the prior year." I'm not sure I believe this - do you have a citation so I can check the source? But even if it's true, I'm not talking about income, I'm talking about wealth. And wealth is much more stable.

Jeff Morrell No, of course the choices we make matter. But
not everyone has the same set of choices: while you may wisely choose to invest part of your income, someone who can barely put food on the table doesn't have investment as a choice. Similarly, it might be a really good financial idea for a person to buy, say, a business in China. While I don't know you, I would guess that's not in your set of financial choices.

Jeff Morrell No, I'm suggesting that wealth (not mobility) is linked with (not dependent upon) your parents' wealth. Can it be you're denying that? Do you believe that the kids of middle-class parents and the kids of poverty-level parents, and the kids of millionaire parents all have an equal chance of being poor, middle-class, or rich?

Jeff Morrell that’s true but there’s a strong connection between the wealth one has, the wealthy of one’s parents, and the financial difficulties one experiences. I don’t think any of those is connected to the wisdom of one’s ideas, do you?

Is just that you don’t sufficiently care whether it’s false to even check something this silly, or are you actively trying to pollute the discussion, Russ?

Let’s think about what you’re really saying here, Russ. You’re suggesting that anyone who has had financial difficulties isn’t fit to serve on this committee. This would mean that only rich folks would get input into government policy on financial matters. Given that most of our country is not rich, that is a profoundly undemocratic view to hold.

House of Leaves is the scariest book I’ve ever read. It’s not an easy Stephen King-ish read though. (I’m not knocking King-I like him, too)

I was confused because there are two Northam “scandals” happening right now. I think the infanticide one is silly. I think the blackface one is legitimate.

Russ, I did read both the links you posted. The first was about how the Democrats were supposedly for infanticide. I think that’s a willful misunderstanding of Northam’s comments as I stated above. The second was somebody asking Pelosi about Northam’s statement and she dodged by claiming she hadn’t seen it. Maybe that’s a lie on her part.

Russ Has Pelosi changed her stance on Northam in the last few hours? https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/congress/pelosi-calls-on-northam-to-resign

Russ who is changing their minds? I’m not.

Also, let’s be clear that Northam was not talking about infanticide. He never said the word. He was talking about whether to take extraordinary measures to preserve the life of a severely compromised newborn infant, or to let a non-viable infant die naturally with all comforting measures possible. I think that’s a legitimate discussion to have. Do you disagree?

Russ Granger it sure seems like Democrats are calling for his resignation. What sources suggest that we aren’t? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/us/politics/ralph-northam-virginia-governor.html
“... facing pressure from his own party to resign...”

Most Americans do not agree that legal abortion is infanticide, Russ. (That's why it's legal)

Brandon Hills Interesting questions. Here are my responses:

"If you were to analyze that flake of skin what species does it come from?" - Homo sapiens. Not sure what your point is. That doesn't make the skin flake itself a person, any more than a zygote (IMO) is a person. You previously cited the DNA and ancestry of a zygote as support for a zygote being a "human baby". I think the same DNA evidence could support a hair follicle being a human baby, which it clearly is not. You are going to need additional evidence to convince me otherwise.

"If an old person is not considered viable then should they be euthanized?" I don't see how any argument I made can be used to support this claim, and I do not support it. I did not say anything about viability in my argument; you are conflating the words I wrote with what you expected me to write. It would be easier to have a good discussion if you did not do that.

"If a people group is thought of as not human or less than human should it be legal to kill them? What does the golden rule say about that?" Well, your question has in it two conflicting premises. By saying "people group" you are saying that the subjects of your question are people, and by saying "thought of as not human" you are saying that the subjects are not. Now, "thought of" suggests that (within the context of your question) this idea is mistaken. Therefore you appear to be presenting an obfuscated way of saying this: If a group of people is mistakenly thought of as subhuman, should it be legal to kill them? And I would (of course) answer: No, it should not be legal and the golden rule would argue against that. However, if instead we ask this question, then it may be different: If there is a valued nonhuman entity (e.g., potential human or perhaps a thinking non-human), should it be legal to kill them? To this I would answer that it depends on the value and the reason for killing, and I go back to my earlier paragraph starting with "Somewhere on the path".

Brandon Hills I disagree. A flake of skin or a hair follicle possesses all the same properties you list, and these are not human.

Courtney. Good discussion. My responses to some of your points:

You write, "You can see videos for yourself videos of babies being aborted well before 3rd trimester reacting to the pain of being killed, even trying to scream. But it can't. I know if you saw that and realized that, you would change your stance based on what you've already said." I absolutely would not. All kinds of creatures scream in response to pain; that does not make them human and thus worthy of extraordinary protections.

You write, "I know that probably most who do have an abortion feel shame and guilt for what they do." I firmly disagree, and I would challenge you to find actual evidence for this claim. The women I know who have had abortions feel sad, but not ashamed or guilty, based on what they have told me. Here is a study that concludes, in part, "In the three years after terminating a pregnancy, women tended to cope well emotionally. Women overwhelmingly felt abortion was the right decision in both the short-term and over three years..." (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0128832#sec017)

I think that your media sources are biasing your views, when you report "video evidence of women who say they've had many abortions and would do it again so they could just freely have sex." Perhaps they found one or two people who feel that way...out of how many? Millions?

Also when you report things like "how debased our society has been becoming," I'm very skeptical, because I do not see that at all. Maybe some data can shed light on this? Hmm...you seem to view sexual activity as a things that represents debasement. Here is a CDC study that shows declining rates of teen sexual activity: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trendsreport.pdf. Here is a CDC result that shows fewer people living a (you might call it) promiscuous lifestyle (more than 5 partners in the previous year) over the 2002 - 2015 period: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#number12months. Here is a similar result from a third party that analyzed CDC data, showing that the fraction of HS students who have ever had sex is at an all-time low (in 2017):https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-423.png. Here is a chart from an HHS study showing that teen pregnancy is at an all-time low: https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/sites/default/files/teen-birth-rates.png. So, tell me again how you know that our society is becoming more debased? Perhaps because your media tells you so?

Perhaps the debasement you perceive is just that people are outspoken about what you call their "sinful" desires, and will not be shamed by those who want them to feel bad about a natural part of the human condition? I am not ashamed that I, like you, and pretty much every other human, am a sexual being. I don't believe in sin; I believe in the Golden Rule, and not hurting others. I believe that people should be free to live as they wish so long as their choices don't harm others. I believe that people should have as much sex as they and their partner(s) are happy with, and that's a good thing for the world.

Out of ALL my Sisters-In-Law!

Courtney, I'm glad to see that my views are more complex than what you ascribe to me. I would say that there is a continuum between a zygote and a newborn infant. I would say the the first is not a human, but instead is a potential human. I would say the second is a human.

Somewhere on the path from zygote to newborn, the creature should begin to have rights (meaning there is a responsibility for society to care for it). Somewhere after that, the creature should have rights that may outweigh the wishes of the mother (meaning that she should not be allowed to terminate it without a good reason). I'm willing to entertain the idea that somewhere after that, it may have rights that allow it to harm its mother (meaning that its life should be saved even if that causes harm to the mother). Nowhere along that continuum should the rights of the creature allow it to kill another human (meaning that there is no time where its life should be saved even if that would kill its mother).

I would place those landmarks fairly late along the path. I think in particular that third-trimester abortions should not be undertaken without a good reason.

So, no, I do not think it's okay to destroy human life, innocent or not, and I believe you are mis-characterizing the pro-choice side of the argument. I think that the vast majority believe as I do that abortion is a tragic choice, outweighed only by worse alternatives. I know women who have had abortions, and none of them did it blithely. Rather, all did it knowing that without the abortion, the consequences would have been dire, not only for them, but for their potential child as well.

Getting through the day is better than the alternative! ❤️

Mostly disagree, Courtney.

Whitney Klein

I agree: that is the issue. However, I actually hope that the Democrats give him a wall, or at least something he will consider a wall, and that they get real, substantive legislative benefits in exchange. That's what legislating should be about. If he wants a dumb, expensive thing that he can crow about, and he wants it really bad, that should be an opportunity to take him to the cleaners on issues that really matter. And once he is out of office, we can stop spending money on building / maintaining the dumb thing.

Not actually Dan Rather's quote, as it turns out. It's from a commenter on Rather's News And Guts site.

Wait: *Now* you’re all about evidence?! Interesting...

Okay, with that out of the way, I basically agree with you, assuming that these videos and the data in this piece is accurate. It does appear that they kids were not there to antagonize anyone, and that this whole thing was basically due to a mid-communication or misunderstanding: the kids didn’t know there was a Native American rally, and the Native Americans didn’t know that the kids weren’t there to bother them. Perhaps some communication could have avoided this unfortunate interaction.

Bummer for Europe; lucky for Bellingham!

Probably not from Dan Rather, as it turns out. But posted on his News And Guts page. Here's an updated graphic:

Thanks, Hannah!

Even having to cut it short, you and Dexter will have created amazing memories, which will last a lifetime. Looking forward to seeing you guys once you’re home!

Cambria It’s on my shelf too.

You're doing great, Mom! Stay strong!

If nobody else wants this, I would love it! I used a lot of closet hangers last time.

Yikes! That sucks, man. Glad you are recovering.

It's yours if you want it. PM me to arrange pickup! :)

Jeremy Hirsch I see it in the comment here

Can you see the picture under Jeremy's words "This always makes me smile"? I can't. He can.

It took me a minute to figure out why you would smile at the "Attachment Unavailable" message. I think it's kind of dry and boring.

Glad you’re taking care of yourself, Mom.

Or just a big neon "FALSE" that will light up when he is lying.

They should have his speech in a 1/4 window, and the rest being a live-fact-checking news panel.

There's some research, Mick. What were you saying, again?

Hope there's not a fire

4007

Jeff Olsen
Thank you very much for supplying some kind of evidence in support of your claim. I appreciate when someone from the other side of an argument wants to actually debate using normal ways of trying to convince the other side.

Here's my response:

The bill you refer to (Secure Fence Act of 2006) does not call for a Gulf-to-Pacific fence or wall. It calls for the following (from the official summary of the bill):

"at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending: (1) from ten miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to ten miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (2) from ten miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to five miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry...; (3) from five miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to ten miles east of El Paso, Texas; (4) from five miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to five miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (5) 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry..." (https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6061)

By my calculations, that adds up to 20 + 385 + 95 + 65 + 240 = 805 miles or so, with substantial gaps along the way (total border length is 1933 miles). Meaning that the places where a fence (not wall) would go are those where it makes sense, and not where it doesn't. So, maybe if the proposal were designed to be smarter and cheaper, the Democrats would again support it. And it's wrong to call what this bill proposed a "wall"; it's a "fence".

Let's also note that lots of the border is already fenced: https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map/

Russ Granger you are making claims about reality: the views held and stated by other humans in the world. Your opinion about that is irrelevant. Imagine if I argued that way about issues you care about: “It’s my opinion that Russ Granger believes we should have totally open borders in this country”. I think you would want evidence for that claim.

It is simplistic to say "One day Dems are for walls, next they aren't". The Dems were willing to accept the wall as part of a larger deal, not that they supported the wall. Here is the key quote in this story from March 2018: "Democrats were only willing to entertain the massive wall funding figure in exchange for helping the same number of immigrants that Trump embraced in a proposal earlier this year." (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/19/border-wall-democrats-respond-470687)

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it, otherwise your claims "blow away like a fart in the wind", Russ.

Umm...How? The issue isn't that they decided to shut down the government; the issue is that they can't agree on a budget. What should we as a country do, when we don't have a budget? When we don't have authorization to allocate the money to pay for things like Park Rangers?

I have and it was great! We loved it!

I have a box of fancy Maldon that I only use for salted caramels: nothing else matches the big flat crystals of Maldon, AFAIK. Looks cool and has great crunch.

Judy Greenberg Hirsch they were on a different chair. Had a great time!

Ha. Comedy.

This is false. Copying and pasting will not affect your feed. This is a chain letter so the original authors can laugh at gullible users.

Sorry, no: I don’t do chain letters.

Bruce Hamilton My understanding is that immigrants, including "illegals" (as you call them), commit crimes at a lower rate than average Americans. So, perhaps, if you want to have fewer murders, we should have more immigrants?
I don't think that a single example (or even a handful) should drive policy: we should look at data and draw conclusions on that basis. Do you have evidence to show that immigrants, or even illegal immigrants, are more dangerous than other people?

I will add that if your values include preventing murders of Americans, and that you believe that should drive policy above other considerations, perhaps you would support a Constitutional Amendment to allow limiting gun ownership? That would certainly reduce murders, in a way that reducing illegal immigration would not, based on current data.

Is this a challenge?

I decry this violence, just like I decry all violence. And I am not "pro-illegals", but I do think that the measures we currently take to address the problem of illegal entry into our country and undocumented citizens are misguided & out of proportion to the scale of the problem.

Funny! I seriously wrote it in about 4 hours back in 2015, and basically haven't touched it since.

And at least one other person is using it, too: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/mark-time/id1039592304?mt=8

This didn’t post until I got back to the car, but it was a great day skiing with the kids.

You're awesome, Mom!

Some cat from the internet

Thanks, Jeremy! So cute!

You can do it, Mom! ♥

Russ Granger, Paul Mohme Want to revisit this topic today? What does Trump's CAGR look like now?

Um...Top Republicans get paid, too. Why only mention Democrats, unless you're trying to mislead people (not you Donna, but Fox).

I think where we are heading (but will take a long time to get there) is to have a high-T competition and a low-T competition, perhaps with special dispensation for people who may have high-T but do not respond to it (androgen insensitivity). This is the direction that the IAAF moved earlier this year, and it seems reasonable to me. What do you think?

I'm actually wanting to know what kind of crazy truck is under there!

James P. Sullivan!?

Joel O'Connor That's what I thought! :)

I came within about 2 feet of hitting a deer with my car on the dark top part of Yew St. Road yesterday night! Yikes!

Agreed Jeff. We Democrats need to be better than this. Gerrymandering is wrong no matter which party does it.

Best time to have The Chat is 24 months, and 3 years, and 4 years, and 5 years, etc. Having ongoing age-appropriate conversations about sex and relationships is the best way. My kids knew the mechanics and the basic biology when they were 2 or 3, IIRC.

House of Leaves is a total freakshow, and you may not be able to sleep.

Judy Greenberg Hirsch Some truck. Happened during the day yesterday - Laurel found it when she got home from school.

Call Comcast - they are there today, in fact. I might be back up and running after work. Depends on if they can get a cherry-picker on site.
And then try to replace the flashing.

Damn, we're old!

Wait a second...it seems like your point is that things are bad with the economy, based on this statistic. However, if the Dow cross 25,000 nine times going down, then the Dow must have crossed 25,000 eight or nine times going up, which appears to reduce the strength of the point you're making (unless your point is about volatility, but that seems less likely).

I will be thinking about you today Mom! We all are hoping for an easy treatment for you! ❤️

Oh, puh-leeze. Get over it.

Congratulations, you two!

Cool, Jeremy! Congrats!

Happy birthday Ryan!

Oh yeah? Talk to me in August. :)

I did research there once! It's lovely.

Yes...or just don't be evil and discriminatory.

(Stolen from https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/comments/9yoog4/upvote_to_stop_a_forest_fire/)

God, but I loved that movie!

Judy Greenberg Hirsch it will be fine.

Judy Greenberg Hirsch I’ve got 5 days!

How did you guess? ;)

Tom Weinstein Sure, but it complicates this particular question, unless we focus on the revocation of the liberty he already had, and not his "rights" as a member of "The Press".

Tom Weinstein The tricky bit with these kinds of arguments (rather than those that focus on deprivation of something he had) is that today, what qualifies a person as a member of The Press is very much up for debate. Does anyone who reports news at all, count as a journalist? If so, then there are an awful lot of them. That seems like a problem to me.

Gerry Coleman Driving was your example, but it would seem that if revoking a driver's license required due process (which seems correct to me), then something that is a bigger deal, Constitutionally, would also require it.
But how far does that go? Can they deny a press pass in the first place to somebody who wants one? I would hope so. Is the key thing the fact that Acosta had one, and then it was taken away?

Gerry Coleman so, is the fact of a press pass a kind of liberty along the lines of a driver’s license? Liberty to go to press conferences?

Russ Granger 😆. Saw some guys from this today. And there were folks on my flight going to it as well.

Kyle Davis here for a vendor security conference. We’re evaluating the product (Qualys).

Judy Greenberg Hirsch it’s a conference.

Pretty good; highlights were costumes, cinematography and effects.

"The elections office is required to maintain the ballots in federal elections for 22 months, while Snipes destroyed the ballots after 12 months, which is the retention period for state elections"

Russ Granger destroying old ballots after keeping them for a year and after they’ve been scanned? Not nearly the same level in my view.

Russ Granger that article isn’t alleging anything nearly as bad as filling out ballots.

I will emphasize that election integrity and counting every valid vote is an area where liberals and conservatives should be able to find common ground.

If true, this is unconscionable. The integrity of our elections is of great importance to our democracy.

But let’s not confuse this with voter fraud (by which I mean in-person fraud perpetrated by individual voters), which basically never happens, and is the pretext for rampant voter suppression in certain parts of the country.

We need to ensure that all elections have paper trails to be able to catch any activities of this kind, even when there isn't a public report.

However, the "If true" part matters. Gateway Pundit isn't exactly known for reliable reporting that values truth over partisan advantage.

I agree that the primary problem is Whitaker’s removing Rosenstein from the chain of supervision. Plus illegality of an action shouldn’t be the hurdle for whether a protest is legitimate or wise.

If you're not in Bellingham, go to this link: https://www.trumpisnotabovethelaw.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response/search/

(Poop emoji background because this is a shitshow)

Sessions is being replaced with Whitaker, a partisan hack who will get rid of Rosenstein. Rosenstein is Mueller's boss, and has been protecting Mueller, so this enables Trump to kill the investigation.

Don't let him! We must protest! Take to the streets!

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/415591-acting-ag-to-take-over-oversight-of-russia-probe

Sign up for more info here: https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/18203.

Crazy, right?!

You didn’t actually answer my question.

Date on this is April 2016, Russ. Do you know if this is still going on? Seems like the kind of thing Trump’s IRS might curtail.

I even have the pull-up bar just like he's using!

Sean Bruna agreed. Don’t want you to think I’m onboard with Mick’s language here, just trying to focus on the illogic of his position(s).

Michael D. Corcoran how are they illegal if they aren’t subject to our jurisdiction?

I honestly don't understand how folks like Mick can, at the same time, believe:
(a) "Subject to the jurisdiction" clause in the 14 Amendment means that undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore should not have birthright citizenship, and:
(b) We need to have more Border Patrol officers, who will arrest undocumented immigrants. The only legal justification for their doing so is that the immigrants are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States.

Bonus craziness: Mick often calls these people "illegals". How can they be illegal, unless they have broken a US law, and how can they break a US law unless they are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the US?

You call these people "illegals". What crime have they broken? What crime have they even announced that they intend to break? Please provide evidence in your reply.

You call these people "potential terrorists". Is there any human to which this label does not apply? Is there any reason to think that it applies more to these people than any other, you or me for example? Again, please provide evidence in your reply.

Michael D. Corcoran Agreed that he isn't, but you haven't provided any sources for your claim that the majority of the refugees are young males. Why would anyone believe a claim you make, if your only support for the truth of what you say is that they should "look it up"?

I thought that was me at first!

It was a great day! Congratulations, you two. Love you both!

I think this is a calculated distraction. Let's all ignore it until he actually does something, rather than just spewing stream of consciousness stuff.

I think this is a calculated distraction. Let's all ignore it until he actually does something, rather than just spewing stream of consciousness stuff.

Here's an example of him doing basically what he complains about: https://crooksandliars.com/2014/11/tucker-carlson-flogs-old-death-panels

While the comment is good on its face, the thing that is missing is the context: Tucker Carlson is one of the voices who built (and continues to build) the politics he decries, and he doesn't take any responsibility for his continuing part in it. He just thinks the left should get in line, shut up, and play nice.

I did, but still...

It's the site on which the synagogue shooter spewed his thoughts and gained a following. https://www.businessinsider.com/pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting-gab-2018-10

I love mail-in voting!!

No - That's cool!

I doubt it. Russ isn't that credulous.

Elizabeth Page Haha! That's a good one. :)

What are you even talking about? Just because you can buy a lotto ticket does not mean you have a photo ID, or can easily obtain one. And just because one can travel and buy lotto tickets is not an argument for obstructing one of our most basic rights. You STILL haven't made an argument for why that barrier to voting is supported by a societal need. Maybe that's because the evidence is against you? There IS no societal harm that is solved by photo ID requirements, and there is a very real harm that is caused by photo ID requirements (disenfranchisement of legal voters, and suppression of legal voters).

All you say over and over is "they should get a photo ID". Why should society make them do that?

I will be happy (happier at least) when the right wing of our country stops trying to win elections by obstructing voters and suppressing the voting of their opponents, and gets back to trying to win on the strength of their policies.

I didn't mention rides or transportation in that context; I was rebutting your point about transportation implying possession of a photo ID. All those folks with free Uber rides to the polls are exactly the ones who may not be able to vote because they don't have a dang photo ID!

And no, free rides is absolutely not sufficient to safeguard the basic right of voting. Photo ID requirements, and other forms of voter suppression should be eliminated unless there is a proven societal harm they are reducing. You haven't made any attempt to defend the photo ID requirement, I note with interest.

Russ Granger I'm all for that, but we should not be relying on private enterprise to safeguard one of our most fundamental rights.

Russ Granger You are mistaken to equate mobility with having a photo ID. Every week, there is a van full of senior citizens from the assisted living place that comes to the grocery store near me (where they do sell lottery tickets), and lets the seniors shop. Perhaps they even pay with cash!

More importantly however, is that this statement of yours is, to my mind, exactly backwards. You wrote "not having an ID for one of the most influential rights is ridiculous". Because this is the most basic of rights (not a privilege, but a right), we should not put any barrier in place that restricts it, unless that barrier is strongly justified by a societal requirement. To make an analogy: the right to free speech should not be constrained except in the most dire circumstances, and that has been a core tenet of our democracy for centuries. Can you name the harm that justifies putting the photo ID barrier in place? Please cite evidence.

Good points, Mom!

Happy Birthday, E! Hope it's a good one!

I suggest riding bikes and/or walking Venice Beach area, if the weather is good. For $$, a theme park is fun: Harry Potter World at Universal Studios is pretty cool, Disneyland is always classic, and Magic Mountain has the best roller coasters.

Have you seen this: https://www.tedcruzforhumanpresident.com/

That's a crazy schedule, even for you!

Typical.

Your "doth protest too much" is a deflection.

This thread started because you made a claim: " If you or I claimed to be Native American on a job or college application and were later found to be 1/1024 Native American, our admission would be revoked or we'd be fired." That claim is not about changing ethnicities, but about using an ethnicity that you didn't substanitally have to get a position.

You have provided no evidence for that claim, and I have provided evidence contradicting the claim.

Paul Mohme Now who's deflecting?

Wait, I just realized I made an error earlier: the quote from the Globe article about the student demonstration was at Harvard, not Penn as I implied.

Exactly my point. She checked the box WHILE at Penn. So the previous jobs have no relevance to the discussion.
Now the question is: did she use that ethnicity to get any future positions? The Globe article answers that question with a pretty clear "no".
Do you have evidence otherwise?

Paul Mohme Do you have evidence that she claimed to be Native American when applying for any of those other positions? In fact you are contradicting yourself: You state that she began identifying as Native American while at Penn (after those other jobs), but you direct my attention specifically to those other jobs as well. Make up your mind: was she trying to use her slight Native ancestry to get a job before Penn or not?

And you might well change your stated ethnicity if (as the second paragraph of the Globe article states) in 1993, "students held a silent vigil to demand the law school add more minorities and women to a faculty dominated by white men", and so your insitution was trying to portray itself as less white, and you were doing your part, saying, "My family always said we were a little Native American, so I guess I can help out".

Raises the question: for characters with an arc, do you get the version from the beginning or end? Would suck to have the corpse of Hamlet as a roommate.

Paul Mohme From that article, in case you don't have time to read it:
"In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools."

Paul Mohme Do you have evidence that she "claimed to be Native American on a job or college application"? Because the Boston Globe looked into that question and concluded that she didn't. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

How is that relevant? She never claimed that she was 1/32 Native American, did she? The results would seem to vindicate her story pretty clearly.

Haha. So funny. But I wonder if he will stop with the "Pocohontas" jibe now that he has been shown to be wrong.

Willy Wonka!

I lived there for 8 years. Note that all my knowledge is old though. Last lived there in 2001.

Food:
If you have a car and the time, get out to a good BBQ place. The one I always took visitors to is The Salt Lick (out in Driftwood), but if you can't get there, then the in-town one I liked best was The Iron Works.

Chuy's is a chain now, but it was a single place when I was there, and it's the real Tex-Mex food. The original is on Barton Springs road - go there.

Things to do:
I agree with the music suggestion: this is Austin's claim to fame. I would tend to say that the trip out to Lake Travis is not worth the drive, given a short amount of time.

I had heard that The Broken Spoke was closed but Google says otherwise: it's a semi-authentic Texas dance hall, and can be fun if that's what you're into.

Oh - it's late in the season, but the bats might still be out. There's a huge colony of bats that live under South Congress Bridge and they fly out to eat bugs at dusk. That's a cool thing to see, if they are still there and the weather is decent.

Have fun!

Methodology question: Why October? Why not just take Jan-Jan as the period, or Jan-Dec?

I was in both: Go Chancellors! Go Bruins!

I saw a statistic that claimed a man is more likely to be the victim of sexual assault than to be falsely accused.

LOL

Lots of webs in the face this morning.

First run of the day on this trail, it seems.

Russ Granger Do you really think that what kept her quiet was that some Democrat would keep her story from being exposed? No, Ford stated that she wanted her story kept quiet. ("The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential")
She wanted a quiet investigation done on the allegations before K was nominated.

I don't see what basis you have for thinking that Ford was unhappy with her treatment by Feinstein, or that this kind of treatment is what kept her quiet about the assault back in 1982. Ford stated, "Feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my explicit consent, and I appreciated this commitment."

No, she told us what kept her quiet, and we know from many other victims what kept them quiet for years. It's that people wouldn't believe them because there wasn't evidence for the attack. Just their word against their attacker's.

Jeff Olsen Well, speaking from personal experience, I am about her age. I can recall incidents from my teen years, but not the surrounding details. I can remember the time I first kissed my high school girlfriend, but not really where we were or how we got there. So I think her lack of knowledge of the details surrounding the incident make sense, and in fact are exactly what one would expect.
Coupled with that are her openness about what she doesn't recall, her direct and forthright answers to all the questions she was asked, even those from Mitchell which were clearly designed to skewer her, and the surrounding evidence that this kind of thing was part of the atmosphere in that social scene.
Contrast that behavior with K's evasions, lies (e.g., "Devil's Triangle"), and distractions in his answers. Those were the responses of someone who didn't want to answer the questions, which, if he was telling the truth, doesn't make sense to me. Sure he was angry, but he could still have been responsive to the questions.

In addition, there's the issue of who stands to gain? K had a serious incentive to lie, as Russ has admitted. She did not have an incentive to bring this up and get her life destroyed. He was already a public figure, but she was not.

Finally, there's the issue of her previous claims about this to the therapist and others. To believe that she was lying, you would have to imagine a very long-running and broad conspiracy to tar him, just in case he got the nomination some day. Please explain how that works in your model of her lying about this.

We can get way more detailed about this if you want, but I think the weight of these lines of evidence argue in her favor.

Sometimes, but Laurel has no good options.

And I think the weight of evidence supports the truth of Ford's claim. I'm happy to have a discussion about that if you want. I don't think that is in opposition to my support truth but fully in accord with it.

You say there is no evidence, but I disagree. What kind of thing would constitute evidence for you?

I believe that anybody who lies under oath to Congress is unfit. Leaving aside anything about Ford's specific claims, he lied over and over, not 30 years ago, but right there in front of everybody. That conclusion is based on a very large amount of evidence, much of it his own words. Again, trying to support truth and oppose falsity.

The question of the reporting delay, and Feinstein, etc. is a separate thing. Happy to have that discussion if you want.

Interesting that you first posted "Move on...out" (which I interpreted as "let's just agree to disagree here") but then changed it to just laughing at my desire to support truth and oppose falsity.

Laughing at the idea we should support truth. Illuminating.

I think that if we all do our little part to support truth and oppose falsity around us, then that will elevate the discourse in general. That is my goal.

You are asking me to prove a negative, and to prove something I'm not claiming. My claim was not so large as to encompass all the actions of Democrats. My claim was only the falsity of this particular claim you made about this particular video.

It may well be the case that Democrats do this thing, but this video doesn't show that, and therefore what you posted is false.

You don't get to own only the video part of what you post.

I disagree on both points. She is not referring to Democratic tactics, but Republican ones. And you did post this as their tactic, as the caption clearly shows:

That seems like a distraction from the point we are discussing here, which is whether what you posted is true or not. You posted something that claims to be Pelosi "explaining how [Democrats] falsely accuse their political opponents".
I called BS on it, providing evidence.
You are now replying that she said something else that you find troubling, without responding to my criticism.

Can I infer that you therefore agree that what you posted was false?

Um....no. This is not her talking about Democratic tractics or strategies. It was purposefully taken out of context. Here's the whole thing: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4754100%2Fwrap-smear-context

Horrifying. Congratulations on the win, Russ.

Jennifer Armstrong Werner Oh that sucks! Sorry to hear it.

I like it!

This is awesome (the balls-grabbing, not the shaming)! Go, Jen!

Russ Granger I'm not offended. I just don't think that name-calling is conducive to a productive discussion and mutual search for the truth that we are having via vigorous debate here.

Russ Granger Is name calling really necessary?

That is *your* idea - that the greatest fear is for your life. I happen to agree with you, but I'm not sure everyone else would.

Domino Finn I agree as far as it goes. However, I would personally think the fear of being beaten up is pretty different from the fear of being raped. If I thought that my being forcibly sodomized was a possibility, that would color my actions and my stress levels differently from if I thought I might be beaten up.

Plus, I've never been beaten up, and nobody in my family or close friends ever has, to my knowledge. But I know plenty of victims of sexual assault. So my fear of being beaten up is more academic, but their fear of assault is very realistic. So, I think there is merit in the comparison / contrast, even though I have definitely held my keys as a potential weapon, and done some of the other things on the list at times.

Craig Zerf I somewhat agree but the point is that while you and I in our daily lives may do some of these things to avoid assault, we don’t think about *sexual* assault, and many of these things in the list aren’t on our minds (e.g., don’t let your drink out of your sight).

The original post from which the list was borrowed actually DOES specifically say sexual assault.

You’re right, Andi!

Patrick Madalo I’m not sure what this comment is referring to.

David Nicholson So, are you angry that "everyone cheats" as you said in your comment above, or that the "leftists" don't show their cheating right out in the open, as the Republicans did with Merrick Garland?

Got it; thanks. So, are you actually alleging that Democrats held up a nomination? And held a seat open? In 2016?

David Nicholson I don't understand what you're talking about, or what comment of mine you are referring to. When are you claiming that somebody held open a spot until Hillary was elected? Who held it open? You are confusing me, but that's probably because I'm not smart.

Patrick Madalo I will add that you are mistaken about Anita Hill. After the background checks were completed, the allegations came out, and Bush specifically directed the FBI to investigate (on 9/23/1991). Here is a timeline: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html

Patrick Madalo No it doesn't. The constitutional rights to Due Process only apply when the government is trying to harm you in some way. Do you need due process to be allowed to cross the street? To get a bank account? To file a police report? No. Just because it seems you didn't trouble to look it up, here is the 5th Amendment which is the one that includes the right to due process:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Tell me how this applies to giving somebody a government job. Is he being deprived of "Life, liberty, or property" in this Senate proceeding? No.

Now if the Maryland DA decides to bring charges against him, then he would be in danger of being deprived of "life, liberty, or property" *in that proceeding*, and would need to have due process. This thing happening in the Senate is not that.

There's a difference between a criminal *proceeding* where he would have due process and probable cause rights and such, and this proceeding here, which is not. Sure, what is being alleged is a crime, but this is not a criminal proceeding, so those issues of due process do not apply. Nobody is threatening to take away his life, liberty, or property, just to potentially deny his a promotion.

So, good to know that you don't support his lying under oath. And yes, directness and clarity are always a bonus in fraught discussions like these. So, thanks!

And let's go back Russ, and realize that when I said that his motivation [for lying] is to get the top job, you said "Sure he would. Who wouldn't"

Did you mean that?

Because if so, you are agreeing that it's okay for our top legal arbiters to commit perjury and to lie to the American people. I'd expect more respect for the law from a Supreme Court Justice.

Who won't hand over what documents to whom?

Explain how any of this is a violation of Kavanaugh's rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Please be specific as to what right is being violated and how.

Patrick Madalo Those ideas of "Probable Cause" and "Due Process" only apply to prosecutions. This is not a prosecution. Look it up.

Russ Granger So are you saying that she has been planning this since at least 2012, just in case Kavanaugh got to this point?

I agree that it is possible. But I think the weight of the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence is on her side. And I did not say there is no motivation, I asked you to say what you think her motivation is. To be fair, I will tell you what I think Kavanaugh's motivation is: he wants the top job in his field. Your turn.

I think Timmy's house, July 1, 1982 is a good place to start.

Patrick Madalo That is irrelevant to my point about how long the investigation will likely take.

Plus in the Duke case, the accuser was going to sue and get some payout. Here, there is nothing in it for Ford but pain. What is her motivation for lying?

I ignored Duke, because you are cherry-picking the one notable case in recent years of a false allegation. If instead of relying on an anecdote, you look at studies and statistics, you will find that the vast majority of allegations are not found to be false.

Russ Granger Yes, Russ, but that is not the same as having an investigator follow up on things you said, and look you in the eye. Plus they can always say that their lawyer made a mistake if they didn't sign the statement, I think.

That's the wrong standard. This is not about a crime, it's about fitness for the job. The standards are totally different, and you can't fix that after the fact.

And while I don't speak for all Democrats, I do not expect that a reasonable delay (about a week! Anita Hill's claims were investigated in I think 4 days!) will possibly cause there to be a delay through to the end of the term, so I don't expect a delay to lead to a change in the Senate before confirmation. Even if Kavanaugh gets pulled, there's still time to confirm somebody else before the end of the term.

And I don't recall you being on the side of the angels and against a raw power grab when Garland was held up for a year. Maybe you were calling for a vote at that time? Maybe you can point me to your previous posts, David?

Bruce Hamilton You wrote "The four people she named as witnesses ALL swore under penalty of perjury it didn't happen" That is false. They swore in letters that (AFAIK) signed by their lawyers that they couldn't remember it happening, which is not the same thing.
Sure he was investigated six times, but apparently not very well because they didn't get at any of this stuff that's coming out about his behavior in his youth. And they could certainly get more than a handful of sentences out of Mark Judge.
And I do not expect that a reasonable delay (about a week! Anita Hill's claims were investigated in I think 4 days!) will possibly cause there to be a delay through to the end of the term, so no I don't expect a delay to lead to a change in the Senate before confirmation.

Okay, I get your point now. You may be right about that. I still think that Feinstein made a promise to keep her name secret, and trusting Senators and staffers and FBI staff to do that may have been something Ford and/or Feinstein wasn't prepared to do. You seem to be both awfully confident in the integrity of (I'd guess) about 100 people to keep her name secret, as well as confident that about 3 people were not able to do so. That seems contradictory.

Russ Granger You are evading my point by pointing out supposed harm caused by Democrats to Ford, so I'll ask again: do you want these claims fully investigated or not? I get that you think Democrats are gaming the system by waiting and engineering this timeline. But that's kind of beside the point I'm making: should the claims be fully investigated or not? For a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, I think the timing should be secondary to a full investigation. But I guess you are saying that because one side played games with the timing, we should just agree that it's not important to know the truth in this case?

You say you're not going to provide evidence. Okay, but I'm sad to see that you continue to refuse to have a reasonable discussion where there's citation of facts to support your claims. I have supported all my claims, I think. Seems unfair that you should use some third party as justification for not having an actual good discussion here. It makes me think that you don't actually have evidence in this case, because at other times in the past you have used evidence to support your claims.

So, you are saying that had Feinstein released the letter (against the express wishes of the alleged victim), that would have caused an FBI investigation to happen? That is just false.

It requires Trump to ask for an FBI investigation. They don't do what the Senate says.

Okay, good! We've both made predictions. I see that our two predictions are not opposites, so it could be that we are both right, or both wrong. Let's try to come back to this point and see how it turns out after the midterms.

Glad to see you aren't disputing that this is a rush, nor my second point about the supposed denials of those who Ford claims were there.

As to the pawn thing, you haven't provided evidence about that, you are just asking me to provide evidence about something else. Let's be clear that you have no evidence for her being a pawn.

Evidence for Ford's story: Admittedly none of it is conclusive, but then there's no conclusive evidence on his side either. The calendar is not conclusive in the way he claims. However I think there is a weight of circumstantial evidence, including his yearbook, the Judge character Bart O'Kavanaugh, the many reports of hard-drinking and boundary-pushing atmosphere in the circles he was in at the time, Ford's claims to her therapist well before Kavanaugh was in line for this job. There's probably more, but that's some for you. I get that these pieces of evidence might not sway you, so here's one more: he has a big incentive to lie and she doesn't. She gets nothing but pain out of bringing this forward, and he gets arguably the most powerful job in the world if he can get through this process.

As for the Democrats declining the investigation, I think you're mistaken. The Democrats declined to participate in a conference call to ask questions to certain relevant individuals, but that's not declining to have the FBI investigate these claims. Or perhaps you are saying that by Feinstein waiting until Ford agreed to allow her letter to go public, that constitutes declining an FBI investigation?

So here's my question about your last claim: you seem very insistent that the Democrats should have investigated (no matter the harm that might have caused Dr. Ford). Why? To get to the bottom of this issue? Or for some other reason? If you think there should have been a better investigation, why not advocate for such an investigation now?

I don't think the calendar is as exculpatory as he claims. He said there was never a time where the "party" (really a small get-together) could have happened. Many people are pointing to July 1, 1982. He claimed without reason or support, that he couldn't have had a party on a summer weeknight, but July 1 in the calendar had exactly such a party. It's unfortunate that the Democrats didn't press him harder on that point.

And you are ignoring the point Adam is making, Russ. How does a problem with the process make it right to vote to confirm the guy right away? Does he have some inalienable right to have the process last no longer than a certain number of days? You haven't made a connection there.

They were asking for a *non-partisan* investigation, by a group of professionals trained in such things. This was done for the Anita Hill claims. You are referring to a staff investigation by Senate staffers, I believe. That is a different animal entirely.

We'll see. I think you are mistaken, and I think that you'll see that the Republicans will lose a substantial (at least 10%) fraction of the women's vote in November compared to the last midterm elections, or even the last midterm elections following a first-term Republican president.. Want to make a specific prediction about how this will hurt the Democrats? Predictions force us to put our money (figuratively) where our mouth is.

First, there is clearly a rush. How else do you explain them not wanting to call witnesses and otherwise gain a fuller knowledge of these claims before voting? You say "there's a process" but as we saw in Garland's case, the process is whatever the Republicans want it to be. They are running the show and can slow it down if they wish. They clearly are trying to get this done as fast as possible. And I don't recall you caring very much about the normal pace of voting on nominees in the Garland case. Perhaps I'm wrong about that though and you'd like to cite your outcry about "The Process" in that case?

Second, you are mistaken when you say that "those named...denied ever being there." They denied remembering that specific get-together, which is a different thing. We can discuss the likelihood of folks remembering some random small get-together from 35 years ago where they were drunk and not sexually assaulted if you want.

Third, you say she is a pawn for political gain. Do you have evidence for this? Was she a pawn in 2012 when she told her counselor about the attack?

Fourth you say that the Democrats declined an FBI investigation. This is news to me; can you provide more evidence for this?

I don't really understand your final paragraph. Yes, it's hard to prove your innocence against an allegation of this kind. And certainly if this were a criminal case the lack of evidence would perhaps prevent it from moving forward. However, this is not a criminal trial, and he doesn't *have* to prove his innocence. He can just choose to stay in his current job as one of the most powerful judges in the nation. Poor guy.

Oh, I agree fully. But it points out how his previous facade of impartiality and apoliticality was a sham.

NPR commentators pointed out that for a guy who just recently couldn't agree that the sun rose in the East because it might be a political issue, he just painted the whole Democratic Party and the Left as completely craven and out to get him. Interesting that such principles get left by the side of the road when it suits him.

Can he possibly be impartial should be be seated?

So, because the process didn't go the way they wanted, we should all ignore her testimony and just vote this guy into office FOR LIFE? What's the rush? They waited on Garland for about a year. The rush is all political, none of it in favor of achieving justice or getting to the truth.

And it's only "character assassination" if she's lying. Otherwise it's bringing forward important information relevant to the public good.

Over and fucking over

Over and fucking over

Like I said elsewhere. Process arguments don't tend to work very well. *cough* Merrick Garland *cough*

I think a lot of his evasions were about running out the clock so the Dems couldn't ask as many questions.

I think a lot of his evasions are about running out the clock so the Dems couldn't ask as many questions.

That's for sure. He doesn't seem stable.

No, she didn't. She was shaky though, in her manner and voice.

Indeed!

Good point - I understand there's no statute of limitations on the crime, and furthermore there's perjury to consider.

Oh, I think you may be mistaken. I think the four holdouts are going to balk and Trump will pull this guy. We'll see what happens after he testifies. But I'm an optimist...

I missed it too.

On break now. I don't think there is that much time left, but I'm not sure. There are about 30 (?) senators, 5 minutes each = 150 minutes. There must have been about 2 hours of testimony so far. Let's hope she stays on top of things.

I don't think it's getting them anywhere though. Ford is being so honest about what she knows, what she doesn't, and her degree of confidence in everything, that I don't think the Republicans are getting anything out of that line of questioning at all.

They are just making themselves look bad. Especially with irrelevant stuff like "How scared of flying are you, really. Dr. Ford? Isn't it true that you took...VACATIONS?!?"

I love when she brings out the science stick in a room full of lawyers!

And Dr. Ford doesn't seem particularly shaky or emotional in answering the lawyer's questions, the way she was in her initial statement. I'm not referring to the content (which I agree is certainly intended to poke holes in the story) but to the tone when I say "not too bad".

I agree, but at least her tone isn't as aggressive and confrontational as she might be.

It's not so bad now that the initial statement is over. Still bad in places, but the Republican lawyer/questioner isn't too bad.

Not surprised either. Lots of schadenfreude over the entitled rich football kid finally getting some small degree of comeuppance for the asshole he apparently was in his youth.

I recall doing my own patches...when I was about 15. 😄

I have a camera backpack I got from Amazon.

No, Mom’s old 40D

All of them!

Oh, yeah. This is very good.

It is good!

He was into it. We’ll see about officially joining.

Thanks! We’re still here and he’s off hanging with some of the other boys. I’ll let you know later. Thanks for the offer!

This is a bogus AstroTurf campaign by the soda companies. Nobody is taxing groceries. Vote No on 1634.

Cool! Have fun! Gotta go. 🙂

Cool!

Flowers?

Jeremy Hirsch That's an interesting perspective. You may well be right. I wonder if we'll ever know.

The first time I read this, I thought you had "grabbed the razor instead of the toothbrush" and I read the next words with growing horror: "and then left the bathroom with a mouthful of ..." (BLOOD!!!) 🤢💀🚑

I took my 7th grade daughter to see it, too. It was awkward in places to sit together, but it was also good to be able to laugh together in other places. Definitely recommend!

I love that trick! Go Malachi!

The thing I don't understand is why this writer would choose to write the piece. If they really are trying to save the country by thwarting Trump from inside the White House, how does publicizing that fact further the goal?

My view is that people should respect the wishes of a person, or their close surviving relatives, about how to treat their image in the public sphere.

My view is also that I can find whatever I please to be interesting, and your denial ("it's not interesting at all") doesn't change that.

I will also add that many on the right, including your comment above, do not seem to grasp the idea of institutional racism, or how it differs from individual racism. I do not believe that saying "the country oppresses black people" means that the speaker thinks all Americans or even most or even a substantial minority harbor racism in their hearts. I believe that it refers to the institutions of this country, and how they act, individually and in combination, to oppress people of color. I don't believe that the statement is accusing you of being a racist in your heart.

I have publicly written (I think in a conversation you were part of) that the players have a right to protest, and the team owner has a right to fire them for that protest. I think that protesting peacefully is the best part of what makes America great, and the fact that our country can accommodate protests without falling apart has made us through our history a shining example to the world. So I support their protest in this very peaceful and, to my mind, respectful way. However, if their team does fire them, then I won't lose any sleep over that either. They should recognize that as a risk.

Finally, I get that it's a meme. But you chose to repost that meme, so I think it's fair to criticize you for the use of Tillman's image against his widow's wishes.

♥ "rejuvEnation" ♥

A friend sent me this yesterday. Enjoy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jz0JcQYtqo

It's interesting that you draw that analogy. That you feel Tillman's widow's desires around her husband's likeness are analogous to your desires about the flag. That you should have the same control over other people's use of the flag that she should have over other people's use of her husband.

Sadly, it's in Atlanta. :(

Looks great!!

I was under the house pushing dirt to the hole. They were pulling the dirt out the hole from outside.

Well, that's not nearly as exciting as I'd hoped.

Paul Baker While I don't appreciate name-calling, I'll respond. If we didn't have insurance, we'd have to invent it. It's filling a valid societal need. I've made a number of claims over the past 30-ish years, from a number of companies, and I've been generally very pleased with the service and payouts. I understand that you may have had different experiences.
It may well be true that they are charging too much and paying too little. They are for-profit companies that are trying to make money, not do good for society. However, most (all?) states have insurance commissioners to regulate the state insurance market, and that take complaints from the public. Also, one can take the insurance company to court if one feels they are violating the contract.
You say that my points about flood and fire zones are BS. So, what I hear you saying Paul is that insurance companies should be forced to insure you, for rates that you deem reasonable, no matter where you choose to build? That seems wrong-headed to me. If you were running an insurance company, would you insure houses that you reasonably expected to flood or burn in a few years? I wouldn't. That kind of strategy would quickly bankrupt the company.
You've told me I'm a dim bulb and that my points are BS. Please describe what you think insurance companies should do in this kind of situation.

Totally disagree. Insurance companies are the only way we can be stopped from (re)building in places that are stupid to build in, like flood zones, or fire-prone areas. The companies aren't refusing to pay out for fire damage, they are just refusing to insure people who have made the choice to live in very risky locations. That seems like a reasonable decision to me.

Totally agree that a boycott has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech of In-N-Out. Furthermore, the idea of corporate personhood is the most pernicious in modern society. Support an amendment to kill it: https://movetoamend.org/

Sorry, Jennifer. This, like so many other chain messages, is bogus. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-facebook-algorithm-26-friends/

So, you should switch to Google Pay, with good authentication for the account. I can help you with this next month when we get together.

Looks like somebody left his phone unlocked while he left the room.

See above: owned by Paypal, and just as bad. But notably, none of the available options are very good. I haven't checked out FB Messenger Payments yet though.

Matt Oberhardt Doesn't that study include in the numbers you cite illegal aliens locked up just for being illegal aliens? The claim that people make is about crimes such people commit other than being here illegally. Nobody is denying that undocumented folks are all criminals in a sense (although that question is trickier for kids brought by their parents).

Interesting write-up by Consumer Reports: https://www.consumerreports.org/digital-payments/mobile-p2p-payment-services-review/ They like Apple Pay Cash best.

Square's Cash App is just as bad.

Update: Venmo is just the same (just as bad).

I'm thinking about Apple Pay Cash.

That's fine, Paul, but that's not what Russ was claiming. A reasonable read of his claim would be aggregated gain under each.

Paul Mohme I'm just going by the values of the Dow on their respective inauguration days. I can see the rationale in your point, though. Let's go by election days:
DJIA close on 11/4/2008 - 9625
DJIA close on 11/7/2016 - 18332
DJIA open today - 25882

Obama's rise in the Dow - 90%
Trump's rise in the Dow - 41%

My basic point still stands.

Russ Granger you wrote that Trump " Helped my investments...more than obama EVER did." Really? Under Obama, the Dow rose 149%. So far under Trump it has risen about 28%. Now it is true that under the equivalent period of Obama's term to date, the Dow only rose 19%, and it may turn out that Trump is better for the economy over his term, but I don't see how you can say that Trump has helped your investments more than "Obama ever did". Can you explain what you mean by that?

You are in for a long ride!

Michael Davis what would make that a crime? Can you cite a law that the purchase of the Steele dossier would violate?

Because making a campaign expenditure is not itself in violation of the law. If we presume that the purchase of the dossier is a "thing of value given to influence a federal election", then that is not necessarily a violation. I believe it was the DNC who paid for it, and the DNC was allowed to spend $23,821,100 for the presidential campaign (https://www.fec.gov/updates/coordinated-party-expenditure-limits-adjusted-3/).

So, no it's not who it affects or helps that makes it a crime, it's who paid for it.

Bruce Hamilton Here is a response I wrote to something Russ posted. Not sure if you will see it there. It's not 100% germane to this thread (it refers to a Mark Levin Hannity interview), but many of the points of law are relevant to our discussion:

"just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so" - That is a fair point; just because Cohen pled to this doesn't make it a crime. However, the judge also does have to accept the plea bargain. If he pled to a non-crime, such as buying a loaf of bread at the store, and the prosecutors asked for punishment, the judge would not accept that plea bargain. So at least the judge, the prosecutors, and (probably, but not certainly) Cohen & Davis believe it was a crime. Furthermore, there are clear sections of Federal law that are relevant to this. The plea agreement describes them: "Count Seven of the Information charges the defendant with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October
2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 3011801) 35 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C." (https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement) So, while Levin's claim about this not having been adjudicated to prove his violation of the relevant law is correct, it's not as if everybody just made up a crime out of thin air.

"A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity" - This is _false_. The Code of Federal Regulations defines a campaign expenditure as "A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or ANYTHING OF VALUE GIVEN TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54. (emphasis added)"

"You can use my corporate funds... That is perfectly legal, too." - This may be true or false, depending on the nature of the corporation. If a true corporation spends its money on a campaign contribution, that is a violation of law (this is what Count Seven of the plea agreement above is about, and the sections of law being violated are cited above.) However, if the "corporation" is actually a single-member LLC, then it can make contributions, and assuming Trump is the only member of the LLC, he would have no contribution limit. However, The Trump Organization is clearly not a single-member LLC (https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=344985), so it would be a partnership LLC, subject to the individual contribution limits (and therefore the size of the expenditure would be illegal), or a corporate LLC, and any expenditure would be illegal.

"Nothing here was spent out of the campaign" - True

"Nothing was done with the campaign" - Totally implausible. It is unreasonable to think that Cohen chose to silence these women totally on his own initiative, without having the campaign (run by his boss) involved.

"Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in non-disclosure agreements. So what? He is allowed to do that." - Only true if Trump is paying for it out of his own personal pocket. Otherwise, see the above section on the corporate funds problems.

"Has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a non-disclosure agreement with any of its employees?" - This is a red herring. The problem is not the NDA, the problem is that the NDA is a thing of value to the campaign, and therefore is a campaign expenditure.

I watched the whole thing, and then read the transcript. Here are my reactions, and I hope you are willing to devote the same amount of time reading them as I spent reading Levin's stuff.

"Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent" - Nobody is claiming anything about precedent, so that part is irrelevant.

"just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so" - That is a fair point; just because Cohen pled to this doesn't make it a crime. However, the judge also does have to accept the plea bargain. If he pled to a non-crime, such as buying a loaf of bread at the store, and the prosecutors asked for punishment, the judge would not accept that plea bargain. So at least the judge, the prosecutors, and (probably, but not certainly) Cohen & Davis believe it was a crime. Furthermore, there are clear sections of Federal law that are relevant to this. The plea agreement describes them: "Count Seven of the Information charges the defendant with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October
2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 3011801) 35 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C." (https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement) So, while Levin's claim about this not having been adjudicated to prove his violation of the relevant law is correct, it's not as if everybody just made up a crime out of thin air.

"A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity" - This is _false_. The Code of Federal Regulations defines a campaign expenditure as "A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or ANYTHING OF VALUE GIVEN TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54. (emphasis added)"

He spends a lot of time working & giving examples to get the viewers to believe his false version of what constitutes a campaign expenditure, probably because he can't cite the law, because he is wrong. This means he is either not much of an expert, or lying.

"You can use my corporate funds... That is perfectly legal, too." - This may be true or false, depending on the nature of the corporation. If a true corporation spends its money on a campaign contribution, that is a violation of law (this is what Count Seven of the plea agreement above is about, and the sections of law being violated are cited above.) However, if the "corporation" is actually a single-member LLC, then it can make contributions, and assuming Trump is the only member of the LLC, he would have no contribution limit. However, The Trump Organization is clearly not a single-member LLC (https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=344985), so it would be a partnership LLC, subject to the individual contribution limits (and therefore the size of the expenditure would be illegal), or a corporate LLC, and any expenditure would be illegal.

"Nothing here was spent out of the campaign" - True

"Nothing was done with the campaign" - Totally implausible. It is unreasonable to think that Cohen chose to silence these women totally on his own initiative, without having the campaign (run by his boss) involved.

"Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in non-disclosure agreements. So what? He is allowed to do that." - Only true if Trump is paying for it out of his own personal pocket. Otherwise, see the above section on the corporate funds problems.

"Has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a non-disclosure agreement with any of its employees?" - This is a red herring. The problem is not the NDA, the problem is that the NDA is a thing of value to the campaign, and therefore is a campaign expenditure.

(The rest of the bit is just insults, blather, and bravado.)

So, there is this guy who is clearly wrong on a number of points, and then there are knowledgable other folks involved (Cohen, Davis) who all have a vested interest in having these things actually not be illegal, whose lives would be easier if they were not illegal, and who could fight them in court if they thought they might actually win, but who took a plea instead. I think the weight of evidence suggests that Levin is wrong here, and the judge, Cohen, Davis, and prosecutors are right that these actions are violations of law.

I don't see how your points below relate to your posting this thing about a possibly undocumented immigrant (I understand he disputes this) allegedly murdering this woman. Below you don't seem to be referring to this murder.

AP Miento PM me if you want them.

You are not Google's customer; you are their product.

Stay safe, Morgan and Richard!!

Judy Greenberg Hirsch Kinda: facts of modern life. She's known the mechanics since she was 2. This was stuff about pressure, and friends, and social media. Go see the movie! :)

It was good, and formed the basis for some good discussions, talks that she hated I made her take part in. 😄

Well, I disagree with you, and so do the lawyers. I assume that if the case for the legality of the actions were so clear-cut, that Cohen would not have cut a deal. You seem to be an expert on the law, though, so I'm sure you know better than Cohen, an attorney. It's unfortunate that he didn't have you to advise him, and he will be paying for that oversight with (probably) 3-7 years in prison. What a travesty!

Bruce Hamilton No, of course it isn't illegal, and nobody is claiming that NDA itself is illegal, but the purpose of it (to influence an election and favor one candidate) makes it illegal. An analogy is that driving your car with passengers isn't illegal, but driving it away from a bank with the bank robbers in it makes the driving illegal. It's all about the context and purpose.

That is a funny article. It's no surprise that it's a pollster who is commenting on election and campaign finance law, and not an attorney, because the arguments are to my mind, laughable. He compares Trump's payment (via Cohen) to silence a potentially damaging story right before the election to a hypothetical where ABC pays to get the story out to damage Trump, ignoring the fact that one of those is from the campaign itself, and the other is not.

He claims that paying for the Steele dossier is the real crime here, without offering much of a rationale for that claim.

Regardless, I don't think we'll need to have pollsters opine on what constitutes criminal violations of law for very much longer, because this will soon be in the courts.

Come visit again!

Oh, wait - you were joking, weren't you? Duh.

The picture doesn't do it justice, but normally the light isn't nearly so yellow, and those hazy trees in the middle distance would be clear and sharp, and the vague brown layer of haze in the lower sky wouldn't be present.

Russ Granger can you do any better than this?

Jeff Morrell well you’re kind of right. I am trying to get you or Russ to make a clear policy point here so that we can have an intelligent discussion rather than just meme-posting or vague allegations. Making clear, specific points will help us have a good policy discussion and maybe we’ll both actually learn something instead of just yelling at each other.

Jeff Morrell how is that related to this specific incident?

Jeff Morrell I don’t see how this arrest shows the way in which walls work, since we don’t have the wall yet. Can you explain the link?

Jeff Morrell can you be more specific? Right about what exactly?

Russ, I'm guessing that you are posting this because you are trying to make some larger point, as opposed to just informing us of a single murder charge out of the many that are brought in the US every day. Can you say what your point is?

It wasn’t actually all smoke; it was more like smog. Smelled bad but didn’t make us cough.

We were right there! It was really bad.

Yup!

Having a blast here!

Thank you for valuing truth, Joanne!

And the f***ing comma after "mean" - WTH?

Hi Russ - Thanks for repeating it, but I will point out that using the word "displeasure" only shows that the writer knows that the person is displeased, not that he knows what the person is displeased ABOUT. And that is a relevant question, because some on the right (not saying you, but perhaps Nugent) have mis-characterized what the protests are about: Paul Ryan suggested that they are "protesting against the people who have given their life for this country and the ideals that we all strive for to make a more perfect union". That is just wrong. Does Nugent agree with Ryan's mistaken view, or does he know what the protests are about? The fact that his piece is all about wars we fought and soldiers who were injured or who died, suggests to me that he does not in fact know what the protests are about.

And the piece was not about whether it's appropriate for the kneelers to protest while on the job vs. on their own time. It was about whether they should protest under the flag at all. If their employers want to fire them over this protest, then they have the right to do so, I believe, but that question is not part of the original Nugent piece you posted/linked.

And finally, I didn't ask if you would object to a protest in favor of a right-wing, national cause (national concealed carry law), but whether Nugent would. I still doubt that very much.

And, yes, I do know what they are protesting: police violence, particularly against people of color. And they are kneeling rather than sitting, or turning their backs or the like, as a symbol of respect for the flag and the anthem: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-how-nate-boyer-got-colin-kaepernick-to-go-from-sitting-to-kneeling/

Russ Granger that quote does not demonstrate what they are protesting (what they are displeased about). If they are protesting the lack of a national concealed carry law, would he still object?

I suggest a color laser printer. Far more affordable over the long term, better quality, longer-lasting prints, longer lifespan.

Interesting. But I would be more moved by this post if there were any sign that the writer understands what the kneelers are protesting, or why they are kneeling rather than sitting for example.

All of these are describing the phenomenon of temptation and/or betrayal/love triangle. A simple one would be (from left to right): "Video games"-"Me"-"Homework", suggesting that although I have a duty to do my homework, I'm tempted by video games.
An example that includes the betrayal/love triangle idea would be: "Socialism"-"The Youth"-"Capitalism", where Capitalism is trying to get/keep the loyalty of The Youth, and in which The Youth basically adheres to Capitalism, but is tempted and interested by the ideas of Socialism.

Adorable!

"Nothing is secure" != "Everything is equally insecure"

Also

"Nothing is secure" != "Everything is equally risky"

Haha! That's awesome.

I so agree!!

Relevant data would be absolute numbers, rather than just percentages. Perhaps the decline is not due to declining "interest" but declining availability relative to the numbers of Ph.D.s being produced?

Awesome! Miss you guys!

Allegations of personal malfeasance are not evidence of site bias or unreliability.

Chris Bittner Interesting. I assume that "InfoWars for liberals" means left-slanted and providing false information. What evidence do you have that Snopes has a liberal bias? What evidence do you have that Snopes provides false information?

Good question. I judge them reliable because: (a) many other reputable sources tend to agree with them; (b) their articles are exhaustive, detailed, well-reasoned, and not generally sensational in tone, with citations to references that support the points made in them; (c) they have been around doing this work for a long time; and (d) the articles that covers topics about which I have firsthand knowledge are accurate.

I'm not using the personalities behind the sites to judge them, but the content of the sites.

Regardless of the personal dirtiness of the founder, Snopes remains reliable. Your comment about InfoWars is a good example of the difference. InfoWars promulgates mostly false information; Snopes is generally reliable.

So, nobody who lies in a personal private context should be trusted to debunk stories in the press? That seems like a high bar, which would rule out essentially all humans.

Yes, the whole thing from July 2017. Did you read the update on the lawsuit that I posted?

Chris Bittner Is there evidence Mikkelson is a liar?

There is no reason why the personal legal troubles of the company's owner should necessarily affect the reliability of the information contained on the site. Do you have any reliable information to suggest that the site's facts are in error or biased?

Here's a more recent article on the issue, which makes it clear that this is an argument between shareholders and the former owner, who is still on the Board, and it's about management and profit-taking and such, not about the content of the site. https://www.poynter.org/news/snopes-has-its-site-back-legal-battle-over-its-ownership-will-drag-months

Hope you feel better soon!

I would have been entering 11th grade, so Fall of 1985. Whitney, you would indeed have been 10. Wow.

Tim just so you know, Russ is not a Boomer. He and I went to college together. We are "Gen X".

Yup!

I am loving these updates from all of you! I hope everyone else posts as well. Great idea, Marcy!

I left Geology in 2014 and went into cyber security. I’m loving my job in so many ways. Kids are big now (10 & 12) and we’re doing great, still in Bellingham. 🙂

Adam Klein you and Tim would get along well, I think. :)

Tim, I agree that your substantive argument was a good response.

Both of you are intelligent people and I respect both of you.

Let's all try to refrain from name calling, please. We can disagree, even vehemently, without resorting to that kind of thing.

That's awesome. I loved them tonight!

Yeah, they rock!

John: Megan wanted you to see this.

Ed Hirsch have you seen a funk-jazz-marching band before? Also Jeremy, Whitney, Joanne, Judy

Wow - awesome!

Yes! We are very interested! Let's talk about it more. I'll PM you.

Laurel wants to do this! Can you hook us up?

It's part of the YMCA Adventure Camp. It's a pre-Junior Counselor program. http://www.whatcomymca.org/leaders-in-training.html

Go Josiah!

Why did you sleep in the hot tub? 😉

Gary Good Exactly. They will buy less soybeans now that the tariff is in effect. Basically the US had a huge sale, and now has hiked up our prices way above everybody else. China bought a ton at the "sale" price, but will not be buying at our tariff-inflated prices.

They bought a whole bunch so that they could get them before the tariffs kicked in. This is a one-time, temporary thing.

I know, right‽

Yeah, that's awesome. Let's all remember that political success isn't about how we can all build a better society together, it's about getting the other team really angry and frustrated about something.

Boy do I remember the salad days of the Obama administration, when the frustration and anger of conservatives were celebrated on the left by...nobody at all that I knew.

Couple blocks from home

Just now

Why not? It sounds like fun...for me.

Hmm. Unless I'm mistaken, this is not, as the caption says "an approximate bell curve from rolling dice", but is rather an enumeration of the various possible rolls. If it were the former, there would be duplicates and the curve wouldn't be so perfect.

It was a great weekend!

Pastry Cream

Ingredients:

- 2 cup half-and-half
- 1/2 cup sugar, (3 1/2 ounces)
- salt
- 5 egg yolks
- 3 tablespoon cornstarch
- 4 tablespoon cold unsalted butter, (1/2 stick) , cut into 4 pieces
- 1 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract

Directions:

1. Heat the half-and-half, 6 tablespoons of the sugar, and the salt in a medium heavy-bottomed saucepan over medium heat until simmering, stirring occasionally to dissolve the sugar.

2. Meanwhile, whisk the egg yolks in a medium bowl until thoroughly combined. Whisk in the remaining 2 tablespoons sugar and whisk until the sugar has begun to dissolve and the mixture is creamy, about 15 seconds. Whisk in the cornstarch until combined and the mixture is pale yellow and thick, about 30 seconds.

3. When the half-and-half mixture reaches a full simmer, gradually whisk the simmering half-and-half into the yolk mixture to temper. Return the mixture to the saucepan, scraping the bowl with a rubber spatula; return to a simmer over medium heat, whisking constantly, until a few bubbles burst on the surface and the mixture is very thick and glossy, about 30-60 seconds. Off the heat, whisk in the butter and vanilla. Strain the pastry cream through a fine-mesh sieve set over a medium bowl. Press plastic wrap directly on the surface to prevent a skin from forming and refrigerate until cold and set, at least 3 hours or up to 2 days.

Pastry cream. Make a berry dessert with it.

But also, JD, there's a collective action problem with your idea that "If everyone rejected party and instead rewarded independent politicians, the parties would wither." While that is tautologically correct, it's also the case that if 20% of the electorate rejects parties, then that just causes those 20% to lose political power (unless the parties are perfectly balanced).

There's a reason that parties have formed in every large political system: because they work. To take a de minimus example: suppopse you have three people who have random views on any question, and get to vote. Ties are broken by random draw. Normally they would each win 1/3 the time. However, if two of them get together and agree to vote together on all the questions (and flip a coin to decide whose position to support), then they individually will get their way half the time.

To put this another way: suppose there are no parties, and you have an idea about how to solve some societal ill. You can't do anything alone; you have to get folks on your side. You do this and maybe get your idea enacted. Next time someone in that group has an idea, they will naturally gravitate to those that acted in concert the last time. Boom, you have a party.

In order to *not* have parties, it takes serious, constant, and ongoing societal and individual work.

I would like to see more maverick politicians who would generally go along with one party, but not exclusively. There used to be more of those, but our society has become so tribalized that they are largely gone. I think the solution has to be from the ground upwards: by killing partisan gerrymandering, causing there to be more competitive, mixed districts, so that representatives have constituencies that are not so dramatically tilted to one side or another.

Sure - the original article is good, and I basically support the anti-partisan viewpoint it expresses. I haven't read the Froomkin piece referenced there yet, but I will. I was jumping on Mark's "truth has a liberal bias" thing from up in the thread, I suppose. That is the aspect of this that gets to me the most.

I totally disagree, J.D., because the parties are real, no matter how we might hate them, and they will continue to act as parties, and there is very real benefit to politicians to act as parties.

And while those generalities do not apply to each of you, that doesn't make them any less true or powerful. It's clear that when Republicans control the government, they act on those generalities, to block things designed to fight climate change for example.

For us to close our eyes to the realities of the partisan landscape will not change the effects of the partisan landscape on our lives.

Now, most of your writing here focuses on journalism, and the habits of journalists, and I can get behind some of that.

The problem I see here, is that one side of the political spectrum is openly anti-intellectual, and that leads, inexorably, to discounting actual facts by that side more than by the other side. That means that while truth doesn't exactly have a liberal bias, the left tends to value truth more than does the right. Some examples:
- the Right openly discounts the facts on climate change
- the Right for a long time discounted the facts about smoking risks
- the Right resists even collecting data on gun deaths
- as a matter of tactics, the Right cares so little about truth that they fund institutions that exist solely to create scientific falsehoods to muddy the waters (cf smoking and climate change)

To be fair, here are some counterexamples, which are smaller in their scope of impact, less exclusive to the Left, and less dominant in liberal circles:
- the Left discounts research on the safety of GMOs
- the Left generally overstates the risks and understates the benefits of nuclear power

Well, maybe it's because the consequences are so different: the "Actual" pollution that you can see makes you sad, and keeps you from having a nice clean beach to visit. On the other hand, the actual rising levels of greenhouse gasses will, unchecked, cause whole regions to become nearly unlivable. Don't make any long-term investments in Phoenix, for example. So, I support addressing the more serious issue, not just the one we can see with our eyes.

Another piece along the same lines: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/accusing-trump-of-treason-makes-him-stronger.html

Oh, wow. Haven't tasted Amy's in so many years!

I saw it this morning. It's a little too biting and not enough funny for me this time.

Thanks, Jennifer Armstrong Werner! I didn't realize that Cantwell hadn't yet come out against Kavanaugh. I just called Cantwell's office in DC (202) 224-3441 to voice my opposition to anyone who isn't Merrick Garland.

That's funny, Michael, how you focus on Tim's compassion for you, individually. How his statements hurt your delicate feelings: "you believe I'm an evil person just because I disagree with you". Tim is talking about how your laughing at Japanese internment shows that you don't care about the suffering of thousands (you wrote "interment camps were brought about by your favorite socialist president, Franklin Roosevelt Ha ha ha!"). Funny.

Judy Greenberg Hirsch Thanks, Mom. Yes.

Oh! Send me the recipe, too.

What a great trip! Thanks Mom & Dad!

That's so cool!

Courtney I think we're approaching the natural close of this discussion, but I want to add that I agree we should have strong borders. That said, I think that a guest worker program such as other countries use, would be a good solution to the problem of not having enough US citizens willing to work for the wages that we as a society pay immigrant labor for things like picking vegetables.
I also think that the best (most pragmatic, effective, and humane) way to solve the problem is by targeting employers rather than the immigrants themselves.
Finally, I think that the numbers do not support this being an urgent problem. Illegal immigration hasn't been rising for a while, and probably peaked about a decade ago: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/as-mexican-share-declined-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population-fell-in-2015-below-recession-level/ and https://cis.org/Shifting-Tide-Recent-Trends-Illegal-Immigrant-Population So I don't think these data support spending huge amounts of time, political capital, or effort at solving what appears to be less of a problem as time goes on.

Miss you guys! Hope you're well!

Thanks, Pete. I gave them a call.

Umm...Not really. All the Constitution says about impeachable offenses is "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". What this should mean is up to the House (in a real political sense), but if we want to know what it should mean, well, scholars do not agree: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/02/what_are_high_crimes_and_misdemeanors.html

Courtney: I agree that "the most division in our country was created in the Obama era", however, I disagree that it's Obama's fault. I think it's due to a lot of people who really didn't like a black president. Can you support your implication that the divide is due to Obama's actions?

I think that segregation is schools is a huge problem, and that we should take action to prevent it. However, Trump recently took action that will exacerbate that segregation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/01/11/trump-would-soften-mandates-on-bank-lending-in-poorer-communities/#15a6d97a2b3b
And he is nominating jurists to the Supreme Court who are opposed to efforts to battle segregation. So if you dislike segregation, please come over to the liberal side; the weather is nice here! :)

Can you be more specific about my alleged hypocrisy? I don't understand your allegation enough to respond. Or maybe you are directing that towards Eric or Kyle? Please be more specific.

And I don't see where anybody accused you of being a Republican.

Thanks for a substantial response, Courtney. Here's what I think:

There's a big difference between calling out "individuals" when they advocate for violence, and calling out the president of the United States when he says things like this at a rally (May 2017): "Try not to hurt him but if you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it." That's a much clearer advocacy of actual violence, and it not from some nobody, it's from the President. So, I still think you have a serious double-standard: when it's your "team", you are blind to advocating violence, and when it's the other "team", you are hyper-sensitive, seeing violence where there is only verbal harassment of those who are already very powerful and don't need to worry about anything other than hurt feelings. You say you "don't condone that sort of speech", but I think you actually do condone it when it's your guy saying it, or at least it's not a big enough deal for you to post about it publicly.

As for the BS from news media, I asked for examples and substantiation of your claim that both sides do it, and you have supplied neither, just a reiteration of your claim ("circus of lies from all major news networks"). Want to back that up with some evidence? The Daily Wire article you linked to doesn't claim to disprove mainstream media stories, except for saying that the policy of separating families is not Trump's but Obama's, which is false (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/23/trump-obama-administration-separate-families-immigration/728060002/). Want to try again, and support your "everybody does it" claim with something more than one bad example?

You suggest that the silencing of opponents (in regards to Fascism evidence) is the same for both Trump and Obama, and you suggest that Obama's strong whistleblower prosecution record supports that. I would point out that Obama prosecuted leakers to the media very actively (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/), but there is no evidence to suggest that these prosecutions were politically motivated. Can you provide any? Without it, that makes the comparison to Fascist behavior off-base at least. In contrast, Trump very clearly is trying to silence and discredit independent media itself, in order to increase his political power (https://www.cbsnews.com/video/lesley-stahl-60-minutes-president-trump-press/).

And although it doesn't fit your limited definition of Fascism, I think this is a very clear and chilling parallel: Trump in an executive order, will have regular publications of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants (https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/). That looks an awful lot like the German propaganda painting Jews as criminals (https://books.google.ca/books?id=yMlcJ7QkM_QC&lpg=PA137&dq=Institute+for+Study+of+the+Jewish+Question+crime&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q=Institute%20for%20Study%20of%20the%20Jewish%20Question%20crime&f=false).

Now, I don't think that Trump is a Nazi, but I do think that there are real, serious parallels between how Fascists solidified power, and how Trump is doing so.

Oh no! That sucks!!

I loved Siena! Have fun!

It took me a while to figure out that you aren't heating the inside to 102°F when it is 72° outside.

Well, Courtney, you've got a lot there. I'll try to address these one at a time.

Maxine Waters said this: "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." I don't see any advocacy of violence there in that statement.

You seem very concerned about inciting violence though, so why haven't you said anything publicly about these very clear statements that actually clearly do incite violence: "You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out in a stretcher, folks...I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya." (Feb 2016), and "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." (Nov 2015), and "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." (Feb 2016), and more. Did you complain publicly about these statement? I don't recall seeing that. So, I don't think you have the standing to complain about Waters' suggesting that Trump Cabinet members should be shouted at. (https://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/)

And as for the fascist stuff, why do you get to define Fascism as being ONLY "finding ways to use the law to silence people"? Do you some documentation for that being the one and only hallmark of Fascism? Eric listed a number of real documented parallels between early Fascist government actions from the 1930s and Trump, and you have not refuted any of them, just declared that they don't fit with your definition of Fascism. That said, Trump has clearly advocated using the power of government to silence his political opponents: He repeatedly advocated putting his opponent in jail ("Lock her up"). He has advocated shutting down media that is not sufficiently friendly to him (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918112884630093825 and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918267396493922304 for example)

You have suggested that you think "both sides" of the news media make stuff up, and implied that they do it equally. Please substantiate this claim in some way, because I think you are totally wrong.

Finally, Merrick Garland: After Scalia died, Obama (on March 16, 2017) nominated Merrick Garland (a centrist judge whom many Republicans had previously supported as a potential Supreme Court Justice). McConnell refused to allow the Senate to vote on the nomination for the whole rest of the term, nearly a year. This was unprecedented in the history of the USA. They claimed Biden had suggested it would be right, but that is a willful misreading of what Biden meant (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/).

Russ Granger Eric made a string of substantive claims about specific behaviors that are parallel to fascist regimes from the past; you’ve ignored those and just focused on the word. What do you think of the specific claims he made? Do you think those parallels are unwarranted? If so, can you tell me why, preferably with some specific and detailed arguments?

I would prefer “fascist” or “authoritarian” to “Nazi”

Landed in Seattle!

Russ Granger can you be more specific and clear about your “Maxine” allegation here? It’s too vague for me to respond to.

Russ Granger it is reasonable to argue that any Republican Senator who went along with the Merrick Garland travesty is not upstanding...and that’s all of them I believe. I don’t think that Eric meant every registered Republican, just the ones who are relevant to the political process of confirming a Supreme Court Justice.
I don’t hold with the “nazi” moniker.

My buddy suggests (hopes) that one Republican might stand up and block anyone but Merrick Garland.

Seriously, wouldn't that be nice?

Seriously!

The water was about 105 degrees Fahrenheit, even out where we were.

So cute!! Jealous!

It was! I miss you guys! Maybe the first week in July? (sans kids)

Interesting. I don’t see the plain term “assault rifle” anywhere in the text of the initiative, although I do see “semiautomatic assault rifle”, which is defined as follows: “any rifle which
utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract
the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which
requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”

I’m not a gun expert; does that .22 in the photo fit such a definition?

Here’s the text of the bill: https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

Definitions start on page 23.

Can somebody cite the actual text of the initiative that supports the claim in this photo?

This particular piece has more Cpx than most.

Olivine Pools trail, north side of Maui. Some parts have phenocrysts about 1 cm! Really cool! About 10% Olivine, 70% Opx, 30% Cpx with the overall distribution being about 90% phenocrysts.

Pete Stelling?

Pete Stelling?

Thanks Morgan! Jeremy took it and waited for just the right moment.

Instagram made it square. Here’s the full height with the moon and torches.

I think so!

Maui for four days and Kona for seven! My first time here!

You’ve been warned! 😉

Europe for a year.

Thanks! You too! Damn I’m jealous of you and Dexter!

This is quite possible, but not unusual. Olivine (the mineral name for the gem peridot) is fairly common in basaltic lavas such as those that make up most of the Hawaiian Islands.

Love these books!!

And here I thought that quote was just from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory! What a barbarian I am.

I missed "Come On, Eileen" by a month. DANG!

It's been about a month, so he's about twice this size now. I'll take another photo tonight.

When I got mine, there's was only one choice.

Judy Greenberg Hirsch I don’t see an option for a kid size

Just got one for Laurel who gets sick sometimes. I bet there are curvy roads that we'll be on as well!

I've done it in the past. It's harmless fun. Friday was a bit chilly, though.

If we're talking about the politics of it, I'd say it's a win for the Democrats. The guy is running as an independent but claims to be basically libertarian, so he ought to pull votes more from the GOP than the Democrats.
If we're talking about policy, McAuliffe did the right thing (IMO), and even if there's an unfortunate political consequence, it was still right.

I think we have to entertain the notion that the employee's speech in each case was just as reprehensible to the owners' ears, and (in the view of the owners) likely to cause just as much harm to the business.
I don't hold those views, but I can see how a set of rich conservative team owners might. I actually think the new NFL policy is fine.

If they are hypocritical for liking the second but disliking the first, then anybody on our side who likes the first but dislikes the second is also hypocritical.

Um, this cuts both ways.

Good thing they are the Law And Order party.

Rob Knode turns out it’s likely Flagg Mountain we were on.

No: Goat Mountain maybe? Definitely along Goat Creek for most of it.

It was closed, so no. 😞

Happy Anniversary, Mom & Dad!! 50 years! Can’t wait to celebrate together next month!

Yup!

Don Fine - Were you upset about the Chinese trade imbalance when Obama was in office? Did you write about how awful it was? If not, why give Larsen grief about it? Maybe the trade imbalance just isn't that important in the larger scheme of things?

It was! Drizzly but fun!

Audiobooks!

One

Actually that’s an issue; I’m not pulling out the whole floor, so I’m going to have to build it back up to the same level after with extra plywood.

So far there are 5 layers of flooring and we still haven’t hit the real subfloor

This sucks. If only there had been more guns in the hands of the teachers there...

Cool! Wonder what its story was to get up to Bellingham?

Yay! Good call

Only true if you ignore the marginal cost savings associated with the carbon savings, I bet.

Dang! We'll be in Hawaii on a big extended family trip.

What system is automatically trimming it? Seems unlikely.

You can still stop by the new place later on if you want. 2337 Yew Street Road.

Ah well, it's cool. We'll manage.

Change of plans: Helpers needed Saturday 9:30-12:30. Still have pizza and beer after.

Actually, no. Current NIST recommendations specifically say that passwords should NOT be changed regularly.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/08/18/nists-new-password-rules-what-you-need-to-know/

or if you want the raw hard-to-read version:

https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html#sec6

with the relevant text being "Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). "

Current recommendations would replace "Change them often" with "Don't use ones that other people have used already" :)

Listen to the computer talk to real people, who have no idea what's going on: https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natural-conversation.html

Second Dark Tower as a good example of what Lukas is looking for.

Agree that it's amazing, but it's not finished or worked out yet, and seems unlikely to do so in one more book, so I don't think that's a good response to Lukas' query.

And you know what else would be an even greater disaster? If the earth did not keep orbiting the sun: we'd be pulled into it and incinerate. Wow!

Okay, I just read the text myself and I was wrong. You don't have to be claiming to represent the USA. Kerry is wrong on this, and could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. Mea Culpa.

Will Jacobus that is not covered by the Logan Act, as far as I know. Only claiming to represent the USA.

I disagree that they are substantially different or that what the Trump team did was the same as what Obama's team did, because the Trump team's actions served to undercut then-US policy, whereas I don't think there's any evidence of the same on Obama's part.
However, I do think that Kerry should stay out of this, for political, not legal/Logan reasons.

Now the Logan Act only prohibits only citizens claiming to represent the USA. Kerry's actions, while wrongheaded in my view, don't appear that he is claiming to represent the USA. Are there reports to that effect? The Fox News report you post here doesn't make that claim. Any citizen is totally within his or her rights to give advice to a foreign government, or to lobby a foreign government for or against a given action, so long as they don't claim to represent the USA.

Russ - I agree that if the report is accurate, Kerry's actions were wrong. Interesting that you didn't seem to care so much about the Logan Act nor call for jail time when the Trump team did the same kind of thing...

(I had to look up the term)

Jealous!!

Congratulations! Wow!

Oh, debt and I are old friends. We go way back. I think we'll be together for a long time to come. We're like BFFs.

Here are some human-based studies from the references of the first article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120098
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7403744
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8506460
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9181439

Also, I think that you should consider what kind of evidence would be strong enough for you before you dig into the literature. You are discounting all animal studies out of hand, for reasons that are unclear to me given that there are fairly well-supported rationales for using animals as animal models for human biology, and that some of the cited studies are on primates. Also, review studies are not meritless in science yet you seem to discount this type of study.

Jennifer Armstrong Werner here’s one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820578/

I believe the value lies in allowing the older kids to start school later (I believe that the same buses are used for all of them, so they can't all start at the same time). I know that there is very good research on older kids needing to sleep later to perform well, so that is legitimate. What I don't get is why the middle school starts later than high school, because I don't think there is good evidence for middle schoolers needing to sleep later.
So I don't think the issue is that little kids see any benefit from the early start, but that teens really need the late start to succeed, and little kids aren't harmed by the early start, at least not so much as to tip the balance their way.

http://sleepcenter.ucla.edu/sleep-and-teens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/08/23/pediatricians-say-teens-should-sleep-in-schools-wont-let-them/?utm_term=.dfe5856ba04d
https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-news/teens-school-and-sleep-complex-relationship

We went to high school together!

(And that change was at my instigation)

I hate Visio. So much. There are other programs that do similar things that are so much better. At work, we used to use Visio, but have switched to LucidChart, a web application diagramming tool.

There was once a house of leaves, and a lemon tree grew in the yard...

Yes, as I thought: you need an app.

Mark Cronan She has an iPhone.

I've been using Google Voice for years. It's perfect for what you describe, although I'm not 100% sure about outbound calling on the number. Might need an app for that.

No. The planet will be fine, no matter what we do. Don’t fight climate change for the planet’s sake, fight it for your descendants’ sakes.

Sorry, if it's not boiled, it's not a bagel; it's a small torus-shaped loaf(?) of bread. ;) (Why, yes, I *am* a bagel snob; thanks for noticing!:p )

I just keep laughing out loud at this. Every time.

Definitely!

Sorry, but I think it's still bogus. Now if they did a trial where they moved the same device around the three locations, and had an automatic system to add the water, I might believe it. http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2008/04/06/myth-3-does-water-swirl-counter-clockwise-in-the-southern-hemisphere/

Chara: you may be amused to know that I first learned to decorate cakes in a program I organized as an RA way back in Rieber Hall!

Jellyfish holding the candles.

Yes, Mom, I did. I got some ideas online though after I decided on a jellyfish though.

I’m hopeful that he had an affair with a 17-year old or something like that, given the information available now (“victim” not “victims”, and was underage but now isn’t). Hoping that instead of messing with little kids in his care.

I hope that he had a relationship with a 17-year old or something. Not horrible toddler-related things.

Touché. But you still need a drive running an operating system to connect to the cloud. Although in that case, maybe it's not worth backing up the drive. Hmm...

This is my media computer mainly. So we use it to watch movies, hence "Popcorn".

Tom, I don't consider RAID a substitute for backups. I advocate both if possible. RAID addresses drive failures of course, but backups save you from a wider range of issues (e.g., ransomware). I'm sure you know this, but other readers may not. I have a little home NAS that stores my backups among other things, and it of course uses RAID.

So happy you got it! I love Los Alamos, and that part of NM in general.

Awesome! Congratulations! Is this *that* job?

Wait: $800,000 a month seems a little pricey! 🙂

Bruce Hamilton that's a fair point, I suppose. But doesn't filing taxes also serve as a proof of citizenship as well? By which I mean that your citizenship status will be revealed when you file taxes (not that only citizens have to file). So they two are still analogous.

Isle of Dogs is weird and good. Very Wes Anderson.

This is false. When do you have to prove you are insured? Not all the time: only to receive certain services (healthcare) or to perform certain acts (drive a car). When do you have to prove you are a citizen? To receive certain services (e.g., Medicare) or perform certain acts (voting). This is not hypocrisy; they are pretty analogous.

I think you meant to say “letting”?

Wow! Looking sharp!

Dan - If an attacker has your login to your service (O365, Gmail, your private but internet-accessible SMTP server), then they can log into your server, send mail as you, and it will be authenticated with SPF, DKIM and DMARC.

Dan - No it doesn't.

Tom, that's a fair point, and I don't discount DMARC, but I just think it (this news item) is a tempest in a teapot, and right-thinking liberals should select something else about Trumpistan to get exercised about.

And my understanding is that they were missing DMARC only, but had DKIM in place, no?

I deploy SPF/DKIM/DMARC for many organizations as part of my job (I probably maintain 20ish of these, including getting delegated RUF reports), and the key piece of your correct comment is "system that respects it". Many do not, and DKIM by itself achieves 90% of the email authenticity protection one desires. Advising recipients as to what you think ought to be done with potentially fraudulent messages purporting to be from you, is just that: advice. They do not have to follow it. This is why I put far more value on DKIM than DMARC. DKIM is the heavy lifting in terms of distinguishing legitimate from bogus messages; DMARC is the icing on the cake.

I'm not that impressed/concerned about this. DMARC is advisory at best. If they don't have DKIM/SPF, that's a much bigger deal.

So jealous!!

The difference is that fire extinguishers do not pose their own, separate hazards and risks, just by having them in the house. Bad analogy.

I was so sad to hear about this, and so glad to have known him.

Sorry, but just as I try to hold my conservative friends accountable for the things they post, I must do so to my liberal ones. This is a silly, irrational post/pic/meme. It hardly needs saying that shooting schoolchildren is also illegal, and punishable with far worse penalties than violating hunting rules, I'm sure. So, it is false to say that geese have more protection under US law than schoolchildren.

I agree about Pegg. Love him. One think I liked was the evil woman enforcer. You don't usually see girl-next-door-ish-pretty women cast as the heavy. That was cool.

I did play Adventure on Atari 2600 in my misspent youth, and found the easter egg. My kids were asking me how I found out about the easter egg, and I honestly don't recall. Probably a friend showed me how to find it. Maybe Tom Weinstein?

Kyle Davis I can see that, actually. They are very different. I think younger folks would prefer the movie, because they don't have the connections to the 80s stuff missing from the movie. Even you, Kyle, probably never played Joust in the arcade, or Zork on PC or saw War Games in the theater, so that stuff in the book probably didn't have the same resonance for you as it did for me.

I agree.

There are cool effects and cinematography that you would miss on the small screen. I'd say theater.

So, the kids really liked it, and I did too, but it was a dim shadow of the book.

Judy Greenberg Hirsch it’s a shrug

...and the kids. Forgot about them for a minute. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯